Skip to main content

Full text of "Nature in ornament; an enquiry into the natural element in ornamental design & a survey of the ornamental treatment of natural forms"

See other formats 


Cat eee il a 


os “Pg 
v4 3 


AULT 





(a 


%, 


an 


NG 


Ft SR 


7 if / 
es 


ee Gy, 4. § 
say anode 


ae 









‘i. 


| 
5 fy 


SS aR. 


SE ls 






\, 
i! 


oi Ul 
7 
O 










igen Te 
"Prggay apes 
“Stans 










ger PEG a pk 
“ipa Pry as 


eS Le 
Nl ata, 
2 






vs 
im 
i 


c. 


fe 
rato 
ee 
Seas 








* 
TF 









al, 
a. 
Va 
oo 
a 
‘o i 
ty 
fb 
f 
Wy 
en 
a 






























x fy 
i © aoa (@} i N aa 
i Se EES Ny AD feesniten 
od A, att ff Pee ae A, A eee 
Ww 2 Ge te Aras 
a ee Nee 
hE By jz pe Wey 1 NEE! 
t - PO eS eee , = 
sare = Ee a aivantis Sy Nite t ati! 
oe se eis 1a Bypass 
ROR Cy See el 
rs oe et men 


pgp 
Pee | 
: 
a 
eB RB OR Se #3 
. ae Yount := 
3A Sed 
2, 


ancl aA a 

35 as 

we ue zZ 
sty 


~s, 































so 
“hy, 
Sy 
A ee 
a 
4 
1 
i 
a 
as 
ay 1S! 
ee 







eed 
te 


is ah 
a 
Lo 
On. 
SER 
ee 
ey 
4 
tie 
oe 
ad 


s 






fed 
a 
a 
oui 
ds 
ga 
Pe 


amet 





Lae 





“tet Pf 
aad 
mobs FT 
nef ye 
eT 
eae 
at 
a, 
ay" 
FR 
Te 


: 
ae 









‘, 


Se 
if 
fh 


2s 
Se 
<< 
FE 
rca 
ee 
fiicteni = 
Zz. 
2 Di 
yoga 
ga 
eats 


fy 

ce 
Bde ATE 
ee oe 





on 


sin 
a 
s 
Fs 
PRR) 
Tal 
Bae 
Ae 


SS 
x 
fa 
S 
i 
al 
ss 
L 
% 
“4, 
a 
r 
= 








CN 


Mel oe Re 


Gp : 

A A A ene 

a. 2 
ay 


il! 
eS 
Pee 





i 





a 


Bini ey 
Mibes 


Nee 








NATURE IN ORNAMENT. 


BY LEWIS. F.. DAY: 


WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 


SOME PRINCIPLES OF EVERY-DAY ART. 
Second Edition. 


THE ANATOMY OF PATTERN. 
Fourth Edition. 


THE PLANNING OF ORNAMENT. 
Third Edition. 


THE APPLICATION OF ORNAMENT. 
Fourth Edition. 


WINDOWS; A BOOK ABOUT STAINED 
AND PAINTED GLASS. 


ALPHABETS, OLD AND NEW. 


Third Impression. 


ART IN NEEDLEWORK; A BOOK ABOUT 
EMBROIDERY. 


Second Edition. 


LETTERING IN ORNAMENT. 





- : 719 i 7 
in as a =, al 
1 
/ 
a at c 
7 ‘, 
: | 
t e 
e * 
+ 
¥ 
= " a 
* 
- 
, ~ - 
* 
"7 7 
¢ 
7 4 
' 
* 
Z “ 
it , 
1] cw Wee 
J cy 
c ' 
ea ~ 4 " 7 


. - Mes: a : 


poe ge Oe at . Pu * ak 
i ; 





i ayn 
’ 
r, 
2 ind 7 = 
i 
PY, 
nal i 
j 
~“ ‘ 
, 
j } ) : : 
ee 4 - é | 





NK 
io> 4 
NMA if 


feet URE IN ORNAMENT 


AN ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURAL ELEMENT 
IN ORNAMENTAL DESIGN & A SURVEY OF THE 
ORNAMENTAL TREATMENT OF NATURAL FORMS. , 


/ 


BY 


LEWIS F. DAY, 


AUTHOR OF ‘WINDOWS,’ ‘ART 
IN NEEDLEWORK,’ ‘LETTERING 
LIN ORNAMENT,’ ‘ ALPHABETS,’ &c. 


WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS OF DESIGN 
AND TREATMENT IN ORNAMENT, OLD AND NEW. 


THIRD EDITION 
Sixt THOUSAND, 


LONDON: 
B. T. BATSFORD, 94 HIGH HOLBORN 


1902. 





MHA 


PREFACE 
Peo tne THIRD .EDITION. 


IT was explained in the Preface to the First 
Edition that the aim of this book was not 
merely to show the adaptability of plant form 
to the purposes of ornament. That is self- 
obvious: were it not, others have already 
called attention to the fact. The purpose is 
rather to demonstrate the natural develop- 
ment of ornament, to show its constant 
relation to natural form, and to deduce 
from the practice of past-masters of the 
craft of design something like principles, 
which may put the student in the way of 
turning nature to account in ornament of 
his own. 

A Third Edition gives me the opportunity 
not only of once more carefully revising the 
text, but of adding a copious Index of Illus- 
trations ; which, as these are invariably to be 
found as near the reference to them as the 
pages would allow, should make _ general 
reference easy. | 


LEewIs F.. DAY. 


13 Mecklenburg Square, London, 
Fanuary 12th, 1896. 





i, 
LE. 


+¥, 


Wi: 


VII. 


VIII. 
IX, 


a 
XII. 


XIII. 


XIV. 


TABLE - OF CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTORY .. 

ORNAMENT IN NATURE .. 

NATURE IN ORNAMENT .. 

THE SIMPLIFICATION OF NATURAL FORMS 
THE ELABORATION OF NATURAL FORMS .. 


CONSISTENCY IN THE MODIFICATION OF 
NATURE .. 


PARALLEL RENDERINGS .. 

MorE PARALLELS 

TRADITION IN DESIGN 

TREATMENT 

ANIMALS IN ORNAMENT 

THE ELEMENT OF THE GROTESQUE .. 
STILL LIFE IN ORNAMENT 

SYMBOLIC ORNAMENT 


INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS 


PAGE 


I2 
32 
52 
69 


84 
103 


129 


165 
177 
195 
213 
236 
249 





I. 


» 


14. 
15 
16. 
M7. 


List OF PLATES. 


FLEUR DE LUCE—treatment of the Iris, by Walter 
Crane. 


JAPANESE ROSES—from various Japanese printed books. 
BUDDING BRANCHES—drawn from nature. 


NATURAL LEAF-SHEATHS—from a Japanese botany 
book. 


VARIOUS BERRIES—drawn from nature. 

SOME SEED-VESSELS—from a Japanese botany book. 
poDs—drawn from nature. 

FLOWER AND LEAF BUDS—drawn from nature. 
OAK AND OAK GALLS—tile panel, L.F.D. 
NATURAL GROWTH—from a Japanese botany book. 
GREEK SCROLLS. 

ROMAN SCROLLS. 


ACANTHUS SCULPTURE AND BRUSH-WORK—illustra- 
tive diagram, 


TWO VERSIONS OF THE SAME FRIEZE DESIGN—L.F.D. 
DETAILS OF ROMAN MOSAIC—from Carthage, B.M. 
TRANSITIONAL SCROLL—German, by D. Hopfer. 


PAINTED WALL PANEL—from the Palazzo del T, by 
Giulio Romano. 


18. 
IQ. 


20. 
21. 


225 
22 
24. 


2G 
26. 


27 
28. 
29 
30. 


Bie 
B32: 


33: 


34. 
35 


37 
38. 


List of Plates. 


LUSTRE DISHES—of the sixteenth century—V.& A.M. 


GERMAN GOTHIC SCROLL—from tapestry in the museum 
at Nuremberg. 


ARAB-ESQUE RENAISSANCE ORNAMENT—German. 


ORNAMENTAL BOUQUET—of the seventeenth century— 
design for goldsmith’s work. 


BOOK-COVER—designed by Owen Jones. 
SUNFLOWERS AND ROSES—wall-paper by B. J. Talbert. 


DETAILS OF GREEK TERRA-COTTA—from vases at 
Naples and at the B.M. 


DETAILS OFANCIENT COPTIC EMBROIDERIES—V.& A.M. 


DETAIL FROM AN INDIAN KINKAUB—modern tradi- 
tional design. 


DETAILS FROM POMPEII—wall painting and mosaic. 
CARVED CABINET DOOR—from Cairo—V.& A.M. 
ENGLISH GOTHIC DETAILS—from various sources. 


INDIAN RENDERINGS OF THE IRIS—painting and 
damascening. 


INLAID FLOWER-PANELS—L.F.D. 


LYONS SILK-WEAVING OF THE SEVENTEENTH OR 
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY—Dresden Museum. 


DETAILS OF EIGHTEENTH CENTURY FOLIAGE—from 
old English silks. 


SILK DAMASK OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY—Italian. 


OLD LACE—ivory point, Munich Museum. 


. DETAILS OF HAMMERED WORK—German Gothic. 


WALL-PAPER—conventional growth—L.F.D. 
WALL-PAPER FOUNDED UPON NATURE—L.F.D. 


39 
40. 


41. 
42. 
43. 
44 


45. 
46. 


47. 


48. 
49. 
50. 
5I. 
52. 
53- 
54- 
55+ 
56. 
57: 


58. 


60. 
61. 


List of Plates. x1 


TILE PANEL BASED ON THE LILY—L.F.D. 


CHRYSANTHEMUM PATTERN—comparatively natural— 
L.F.D. 


ARCHAIC GREEK FOLIAGE—from a bronze cup—B.M. 

MODERN GOTHIC LILY PANEL—B. J. Talbert. 

LILY ORNAMENT—Italian inlay, Siena. 

EIGHTEENTH CENTURY FLOWER RENDERINGS—from , 
old English silks. 

A RENAISSANCE MEDLEY—S. Croce, Florence. 

PEA-POD ORNAMENT—pilaster by Brunellesco. 

DUTCH AND GERMAN CONVENTIONS—of the seven- 
teenth century. 

SCROLL AND FOLIAGE—L.F.D. 

ANCIENT COPTIC EMBROIDERY—V.& A.M. 

VINE AND OLIVE PANEL—Lateran Museum, Rome. 

ITALIAN GOTHIC VINE—from Giotto’s Tower, Florence 

VINE AND APPLE-TREE FRIEZE—L.F.D. 

CLASSIC RENDERINGS OF THE VINE—B.M. 

ARAB VINE PANEL—showing one-half of the design. 

VINE SCULPTURE—Lateran Museum. 

STENCILLED VINE DECORATION—Heywood Sumner. 


COPTIC VINE ORNAMENT—from ancient embroideries— 
V.& A.M. 


ENGLISH GOTHIC VINE—stall-end, from Christchurch 
Priory. 


59. VINE IN STAINED GLASS—L.F.D. 


VINE BY DURER—from a woodcut. 


CONVENTIONAL VINE-LEAF PATTERN—L.F.D. 


Xi 


62 


63. 


64. 
Os. 


66. 
67 


68. 


69. 
70s 


mike 


ie 
73: 
74: 
75° 
76. 


77: 
78. 


79- 


LDSt Of, JUGS: 


ARTIFICIAL RENDERINGS OF THE ROSE—from English 
silks of the eighteenth century. 


TUDOR ROSE—from the bronze doors to Henry VII.’s 
chapel. 


TUDOR ROSE—from a stall-arm, Henry VII.’s chapel. 

ITALIAN VERSION OF A PERSIAN CARPET—rose and 
tulip—V.&A.M. 

MARBLE INLAY—from the Taj Mahal, India. 

INDIAN LOTUS PANEL—stone-carving, from the Buddhist 
Tope at Amarivati. 

DETAILS OF BUDDHIST STONE-CARVING—lotus flowers, 
&c., from Amarivati. 

THE PINK—various renderings of the flower. 

EIGHTEENTH CENTURY VERSIONS OF THE PINK— 
English. 

POPPY BY GHIBERTI—from the bronze doors of the 
Baptistery at Florence. 

POPPY PATTERN—wall-paper, L.F.D. 

POMEGRANATES—Chinese colour-printing and German 
incising. 

GOTHIC OAK ORNAMENT—after Pugin. 

COMPARATIVELY NATURAL LILY PANEL—L.F.D. 


ORCHID AND FUNGUS PATTERN—old Chinese em- 
broidery. 


CONVENTIONAL TREE WORK—Indian stone carving. 


PERSIAN FOLIAGE—silk-weaving of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, Lyons Museum. 


DETAILS OF EGYPTIAN SCULPTURE—B.M. 
DETAILS OF NINEVITE SCULPTURE—B.M. 


SI. 
82. 


$3 


85. 
36. 
87. 


89. 
gl. 
92. 


93 
94- 


° 


.o 
Sf 


100. 
TOI. 


List of Plates. xi 


DETAILS OF GREEK VASE-PAINTING—B.M. 


ROMAN SCULPTURE—lemon and apple trees—Lateran 
Museum. 


SIXTEENTH CENTURY GERMAN DESIGN—Peter Quentel. 


LATE GOTHIC ‘* PINE”? ORNAMENTS—from various 
textiles. 


CONVENTIONAL TULIP FRIEZE—L.F.D. 
PEONY FRIEZE—by W. J. Muckley. 

FRUIT PATTERN—wall-paper by Wm. Morris. 
CHINESE LOTUS—porcelain painting. 

COBGA SCANDENS—linen damask—L.F.D, 
CONVENTIONAL DANDELION—L.F.D. 


GERMAN GOTHIC THISTLE-SCROLL — wood-carving, 
V.& A.M. 


JAPANESE CRANES—from a printed book. 
JAPANESE TORTOISES—from a printed book. 
PERUVIAN ECCENTRICITIES—from fragments of stuffs. 


SICILIAN SILK PATTERNS—of about the thirteenth 
century. 


SIXTEENTH CENTURY WOOD-CARVING—S. Pietro, 
Perugia. 


CONVENTIONAL BUTTERFLIES—Chinese and Japanese. 


- MODERN GERMAN RENAISSANCE—by Anton Seder. 


SEVENTEENTH CENTURY SCROLL-WORK—from a book 
of designs, published 1682, by S. Gribelin. 


SIXTEENTH CENTURY ARABESQUE—Italian. 
LATE GOTHIC FOLIAGE—tempera painting, 


XIV List of Plates. 


102. LUSTRE PLAQUES—L.F.D. 
103 


STUDIES IN ORNAMENTAL FIGURE-WORK—by Holbein. 
104. GROTESQUE PANEL—by Sansovino. 
GROTESQUE FIGURE—by Marco Dente da Ravenna. 


106. GROTESQUE SCROLL—cretonne, L.F.D. 


105 


107. KELTIC INTERLACED ORNAMENT—from a MS. in the 
B.M. 


108. CONVENTIONAL WING FORMS-—sixteenth century 
Italian carving. 


109. DIAPERS WITH A MEANING—Japanese. 


110. EARLY GREEK WAVE AND LOTUS DIAPER—twelfth or 
thirteenth century B.C. 


III, SEAWEED BORDERS—L.F.D. 

112. SEAWEED PATTERN—L.F.D. 

113. PEACOCK-FEATHER PATTERN— Japanese. 

I14. PEACOCK-FEATHER DIAPERS—from various sources. 
II5. PEACOCK-FEATHER PATTERN—Turkish embroidery. 
116. ROCOCO SCROLL-wORK—by Philippo Passarini. 


II7, SEVENTEENTH CENTURY SCROLL-WORK — German, 
by Nicolaus Drusse. 


118. POMPEIAN WALL PAINTING. 
119. INDIAN NAJA—stone-carving from the Amarivati Tope. 
120. CONVENTIONAL TREES—from various sources, 


12I. LATE GOTHIC FLEUR-DE-LIS TRACERY—from wood- 
carvings at V.& A.M. 


122. MARGUERITE PANELS—wood-carving. 


123. SYMBOLIC ORNAMENT—book-cover—L.F.D. 


_ 
oO 


14. 
£5. 
16. 
L7. 
18. 


Oo ON AN PW N 


hist OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
IN. FHE TEX FP. 


. Various tendrils .. 
. Vine tendrils 


Romanesque ornamentation of the ian 


. Part of a Pompeian candelabrum-—B.M. 

. Renaissance use of pea-pods (Prato Cathedral) 
. Unequally divided oak-leaf 

. Chinese rendering of Wistaria—old ube 
. Acanthus leaves reduced to brush-work 

. Simple acanthus leafage 


. Step between wave and acanthus ete 


mosaic, B.M. 


. Olive-like leafage 
£2. 


13: 


Oak-like leafage 


Vine-like acanthus leafage, noe = Jubé at 
Limoges .. 


Crocket-like foliage, from Pee 
Modern modification of Classic leafage .. 
Seventeenth century scroll—Boulle 
Details of Romanesque ornament 


Details of early Gothic ornament—stained glass 


PAGE 
14 
15 
18 
19 
20 
22 
29 
34 
35 


36 
37 
37 


38 
38 
39 
41 
42 


xvi Lust of Lllustrations in the Text. 


PAGE 
TOyUSpiralekersian’scroll ge sie eee Peres cl) 
20. Iris-like details of Persian oe eras and 
seventeenth centuries “2. 522.0 =e - 45 
21. Details of Early Persian nen to 
twelfthvcentuny) oe. meee ss <<, AO 
22. Sixteenth century arabesque deiaite“ Connon ee 
235) Rosette m Nouen faience yen ie.) ye. | 
24. Chinese foliage, not easy to identify be ee Peers 
25. Bouquet of conventional ornament—Persian porce- 
lain, “VoSc ALM yo) ee) eee eee 
26. Abstract ornament, not free from foliation .. .. 49 
27. Conventional Chinese flower forms.. .. .. .. 50 
28. Conventional Chinese foliage.) 9-2.) eee 
29. Rectangular acorn patterns—old German .. 53 


30. Simplified thistle—by the late G. E. Street, R. A 54 
31. Gothic leaf border, wood-carving—Maidstone ano 5S 


32.) Rosette or rose ¢— Germany Gothic) 2 age ae nSS 
33. Gothic leaf-and-flower border—wood-carving SS 
Zan Seed-vessels fromy|naturel (1g). eet ees 
35. Conventional buds, or seed-vessels ?—marble inlay, 
Florence. eee en a Gy ase eee eae eT 
36. Conventional Greek ivy leaves and pee saad siete SI 
27 aijapalese DOrder,, buds Or fruits |e) sate ee SS 
38. Conventional tree—from a Siciliansilk .. .. .. 58 
39. Simple Roman tree—mosaic, B.M... .. .. .. 59 
Zo. Haw thor crocket) a) ie ttn eine een 
41. Vine crocket detrei vgase’  csigs le ietec sone | Sot 


42. Late Gothic pomegranate—stencil pattern .. .. 60 
43-4. Indian renderings of the poppy—niellco .. .. 61 


45: 
46. 
47: 
48. 
49. 
50. 
5I. 
Ge. 
53: 


54: 
55- 


56. 


57: 


58. 
59- 


. Ornamental pomegranate—old German embroi- 


61. 
62. 


63. 


64. 
65. 


List of Lllustrations in the Text, xvii 


PAGE 


fee poraer.witi lily buds 3. .. .. .» e» 61 
Early Gothic foliated ornament—pavement tiles .. 62 
Natural and ornamental foliage —Early French .. 63 


Bud-like ornamental forms—Gothic wood-carving.. 63 
Peony simplified to form a stencil—by H. Sumner 64 
Meranan WOU-CATVINS 32s Oe tee ws G5 
Gothic wood-carving ... atten Mone LOS 
Greek that might be ie eee carving gS. 65 


Persian details which might be Gothic—porcelain of 
the sixteenth or seventeenth century .. .. .. 66 


Japanese treatment of the iris—embroidery .. .. 66 
Wheat-ears, simplified or elaborated ?—seventeenth 
momiuny tiabian' sill. 5. 6k ks ee et ee 8 
Floral forms within floral forms—Italian velvet, 
PPM meStett a5: ou) oye ak! Spe at “Sore ewe ES 
Pomegranate berries arranged in bud-form—Per- 
aie er Me es i Eee ee ee ee Cee 
Ornamental pomegranates—Italian velvet ..  .. 75 


Ornamental pomegranate—eighteenth century silk 76 


Reet AV le oe vial Pras cae e ceeh ioe: Utes. ee 
Foliated forms geometrically diapered—Japanese .. 78 


Elaborated flower—from an embroidered Gothic 
UTE Ts 2 I ga a ae Pe ah ee A 


Elaborated flower—from a table-cover of German 
emuroidery, FSee° ce. i! SL a) eal 8 


Bulbous hop-leaves—German Gothic wood-carving 81 
Indian corn adapted to ornament—Italian wood- 
TEU er ees Ee ee Ce 
b 


xvii Lest of [llustrations in the Text. 


PAGE 
66. Rigid lines of the growth of corn turned to orna- 
mental account—by the lateC. Heaton .. .. 89 


67. Artificial grace of line—Italian 9 3.92.) )-. nm 9 
68. Quasi-natural rendering of the lily—by Sammicheli 91 
69. Quattro-cento lily—S. Bernardino, Perugia... .. 92 
70. Narcissus compelled into the way of ornament- 


Te Ds eit eds een 0 pets hice. aie eet re 
71. Incongruous treatment of the oak—Roman .. .. 04 
72. Characterless desisn—Albertolli> 3. 92 ee 95 
73- Inconsistency between flower and leaf—Japanese 96 


74. Graceful artificiality—Lyons silk, about 1700 .. 97 
75. De-naturalised floral details—by Gribelin, 1682 .. 98 


76. Confusion of e:fect without confusion of growth— 
Persian tiles, V.& A.M. wil) Saas eS ee ee One 


77. The vine in Assyrian sculpture—B.M. .. .. .. 106 
78. Vine from a Greek vase—B.M. Sire) So (ee ee eS 
79. Pompeian vine border—silver on bronze—Naples 109 
So. Italian wood-carving—hop or vine?—V.& A.M. .. 110 
81. Conventional Gothic vine and grapes—York ob lod 


82. Gothic vine with mulberry-like grape-bunches— 
York sisjah ele Sc kes) Uilee) Ayejety yuna) “cukele) uel ae emma 


83. Conventional vine, from Toledo—more or less 
WCC) ie ir me Go. (iS 


$4. Moorish vine} irom Moledo v0 a) cee eee 
85. Naive Byzantine vine—Ravenna .. .. oer eS 
86. Early French Gothic vine—Notre Dame, Paris ce SSEEO 


87. Square-shaped vine-leaves — scratched earthen- 
ware, TM ie ein) dete die coe bso kleiep 


88 Diamond-shaped vine-leaves—Gothic .. .. .. 118 


89. 
go. 
gl. 
92. 
93: 
94. 
95- 


96. 


97: 
08. 
99: 
100. 


Io!l. 
102. 


103. 
104. 
105. 
100. 
107. 


108. 
109. 


IIO. 


IIl. 


List of Lllustrations in the Text. 


Vesica-shaped vine-leaves—York ., 

Diagram of Italian Gothic treatment—Padua 

Transitional vine scroll—German linen damask .. 

Italian quattro-cento vine scroll—Venice 

German Renaissance foliage—by Aldegrever 

Vine in Gothic glass-painting—Malvern 

Quasi-Persian rose — Italian velvet, sixteenth 
century.. 


Oriental rose ee eed in silk Ae 
gold on linen 


Rhodian rose—from a erence: dish 
Roman lily forms—a candelabrum d 
Indian lotus—Buddhist stone-carving, B. M. 


Seventeenth century iris—appliqué embroidery, 
Italian, V.& A.M. 


Renaissance pinks—needlework ye ees 

Modern Gothic ee ae the me B. I. 
Talbert... be eee oe 

Pomegranate— Spanish A or 

Oak—from the Cathedral of Toledo 

Assyrian tree of life .. 

Oak—from a Sicilian silk 


Romanesque tree of life—from a painted roof at 
Hildesheim .. 


Renaissance silk—showing Persian influence 
Egyptian symbolic papyrus 


Assyrian symbolic ornament— glazed earthenware, 
B.M. 


Abstract Greek ornament—from a vase 


X1X 


PAGE 
119 
120 
I2I 
123 
124 
126 


130 


131 
132 
133 
134 


135 
136 


139 
140 
I4I 
142 
142 


143 


149 
150 


151 


152 


XX 


112. 
Iles 
II4. 
I15. 
116. 
Tele 


118. 
119. 


120. 
121. 
122. 
122) 


124 


Ibe 


126 


129. 
130. 
gt. 


132. 


io 
134. 
135. 


List of Lllustrations tn the Text. 


PAGE 
Later Greek ornament—from a vase .. .. .. 153 


Assyrian rosette of lotus flowers and buds .. .. 155 
Gothic ornament—from Notre Dame, Paris .. 156 
Kifteenth century, ir-cone ornaments) |.) eee Ms 
Chineseslowerdfornis: Gescness ae ence ee 


Etruscan and Greek anthemion shapes as ere BRS 
Japanese diaper aap Oag ei ies le tele 2 rare Ure arate mmm Le) 
Japanese diaper ait gate aed ty lahat Sane ciae cele SO) 


Lily-like Greek fecaeae various sources .. 160 
Romanesque detail approaching to the fleur-de-lis 160 
Gothic pattern—KEarly fleur-de-lis <n! eel Oe 
Concentric forms—seaweed) +.) 4 eee 


Gothic—anthemion shape—from the nimbus of 
a figure in one of the stained-glass windows at 
Fairford wh) Ah Abies oo wed tC ee CO 


Gothic diaper—radiating—from a paintedscreen 162 


ra7. } Renaissance ornament—Italian wood-carving .. 163 


. Renaissance aoe a, Mino da Fiesole, 


Hilonrence: aeeanr 2) BGO 
Abstract ieee ae We & A. M.. S169 
Would-be ornamental sdnudine Sige | AZO 


Chinese rendering of ‘‘kiss-me-quick’’ — em- 
broidery ie Ve Ae abe) bia Taisen ieee iene aaa ER 


pee natural treatment of poppy— 
SED): er apne : a ic, Ze 


Cones natural treatment of fig Lt ED eee 
Ornamental treatment of strawberry—L.F.D. .. 174 
Dolphins used as ornament—by George Fox .. 180 


136. 
eye 
138. 
139. 


140. 
41. 
142. 
143. 
144. 
145. 
146. 


147. 
148. 
149. 
150. 
I5I. 
152. 
E53. 
154. 
155: 
156. 
Lye 
158. 
159. 
160. 


idi. 


List of Lllustrations wn the Text. 


Circular bird (and flower) crest 
Circular bird crest WERT © 7%, 
Ornamental indication of birds in fight 


Diaper of storks and eae Si flowers 
combined 


Dragon-fly Sea ees 

Diaper of conventional bats 

Bird diaper by the late Wm. eee A.R.A. 
Repeating figure pattern.. Gat Pree apie at 
Conventional peacock border—Indian embroidery 
Egyptian wing treatment—vultures 


Egyptian wing treatment—hawk in cloisonné 
enamel ., 


Bat diaper—old Japanese 

Embroidered bat—Chinese 

Pilaster by Signorelli— Orvieto 

Grotesque iron grille—German se eeae Mgak 
Wings reduced to ornament—Italian aay carving 
Ornamental dragon—Japanese .. .. .. «®t 
Arctic American grotesquerie—embroidered cloth 
Spring blossoms on the stream—Japanese .. 
Diaper of spiders’ webs .. 

Diaper of flames 

Cloud and bat pattern 

Cloud pattern 

Wave pattern .. 

Water and water-lilies 


Wave pattern and water-fowl 


XX1 


PAGE 


181 
181 
ISI 


182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 


189 
IgI 
194 
202 
204 
209 
210 
211 
213 
214 
215 
216 
216 
216 
217 
218 


xxii Last of /llustrations in the Text. 


PAGE 
162. Wave pattern—Japanese porcelain sia 7 ateloet a emeeeALE 
163. Wave pattern—-Japanesellacquer =. 22-2) seaelo 
164. Wave ornament shyile > berm Lo lacdll  iotoal), cSt DO ney TG) 
LOS. \WAVECOEMAMNEM tH) ct) fon aceite sen een ING) 
100s Waveland sprayspattern yen) on er eee 
167. Decorative rendering of incoming wave—Japanese 221 
TOS>" Shell ornaments. 0 je Seem yoo. 8 se) er ee eee 
169; Seaweed onmanmivent iy. oem cea. Wilner ae enna 
170. Heraldic mantling—part of a painted i 
ese): BY, A, Oca 0 sales ar eat tee mea 223 
171. Heraldic cnaae — German Gothic Soee 
CALVIN Carr eu emir 224 
172. Inlaid eae -feather onenea nn J. Talbert 226 
173) Coptic feather bonder— Ve cc Ne Veneer eee 
174. Coptic feather diaper—V.& A.M. cea oor 227, 
175. Persian peacock feather areata Ae 
WaSe As MIG sis ke Sav cro tees Nit ears 2 
170, Drophy panel —Nenaissance ). 05.) eee 
177. Francois I** skull ornament—wood-carving, Fon- 
tamebleaus A. ese ices ees eee ee I 
178. Early Phoenician wreath sre! 7 felelct'on ioe vstelatet as aanayee ama 
179; OWAS OF tault= bunches sea nse ae 
180; Weyptian sacred! beetle... | 3. sity ot ato REA 


181. Diaper of waves, clouds, and oe birds cfos eeteoS 
182. Cross of fleurs-de-lis—thirteenth century .. .. 238 
183. Assyrian sacred tree auc sin Shei Ze 
184. Assyrian sacred tree—B.C. 885- 860 os tee a eee 


185. Iris or fleur-de-lis ?—Seventeenth century Vene- 
Hanrvielviet sce yetgeissiny Sti ited ech ier teen 


List of Lllustrations in the Text. xxiii 


2 PAGE 
Pemeeeyptian symbols .. 1) ss) we co os «2 240 
187. Gothic fleurs-de-lis—from old glass, Lincoln .. 241 
188. Heraldic badges—Sixteenth century, Mantua .. 242 
189. Symbolic eye—Egyptian eatne arc ema. ins, 24S 
190. Segment of Greek border of eyes—painted terra- 

RE Se NM ie fee Pi Uk Seber cee sin! aS 
191. Symbolic border of seed-vessels—L.F.D. .. .. 245 
192. Heraldic oak—Italian Renaissance .. .. .. 246 


ABBREVIATIONS, 


B.M.—British Museum. 
V.& A.M.—Victoria & Albert Museum. 
L.F.D.—Lewis F. Day. 


i i i 


i 
oe 





NATURE IN ORNAMENT. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


THE bias of the natural man is not un- 
naturally in the direction of nature. Almost 
alone in the history of art, the Greeks and 
the Moors appear to have been content with 
ornament which was ornament pure and 
simple. It is not too much to say, even in 
these days of supposed interest in things deco- 
rative, that the Englishman generally speaking 
neither knows nor cares anything about the 
subject. He is in most cases absolutely out of 
sympathy with it. Possibly he has even a sort 
of contempt for the “ornamental,” as some- 
thing opposed to that utility which he so 
highly esteems—never so much as appre- 
hending the fact that ornamental art is art 
applied to some useful purpose. 

The forms of ornament he most admires 
are those most nearly resembling something 

B 


2 Nature in Ornament. 


in nature, and it is because of that resemblance 
he admires them : abstract ornament is quite 
outside his sympathies and beyond his under- 
standing. He begins, for example, to take a 
feeble interest in Greek pattern-work only 
when he sees in it a likeness to the honey- 
suckle. Show him some purely ornamental 
form, “and “it is metther its, beautyA, monmmes 
character, nor its fitness that strikes him; he 
is perplexed only to know what it is meant 
to represent. Wo him’ every form or omna- 
ment must have its definite relation to some 
natural object, and therein lies all its interest. 

Relation to nature there must be indeed, and 
every one will acknowledge the interest with 
which we trace such relationship ; but no one 
who really cares for ornament at all will allow 
that it depends upon that for its charm. 

When ornament has gone astray, it has 
been more often in the direction of what one 
may call rusticity than of that artificiality 
which is at the other end of the scale. 

Art passes through periods of affectation, 
when it becomes before all things urgent that 
opinion should be led back again to the for- 
gotten, grass-grown paths of nature. That 
is not our urgency just now. If there was at 
one time within our memory some fear of 
artificiality in art, the danger now lies in the 


Introductory. 3 


opposite direction of literalism; a literalism 
which assumes a copy of nature to be not 
only art, but the highest form of art; which 
ignores, if it does not in so many words deny, 
the necessity of anything like imagination or 
invention on the part of the artist, and accepts 
the imitative faculty for all in all. 

To venture upon the sweeping assertion 
that all art whatsoever is, and must be, con- 
ventional, would be very likely to lay oneself 
open to the rebuke of judging all art by the 
decorative standard ; but with regard to orna- 
ment, it is no more than the bare truth to say 
that more or less conventional it must be, or 
it would not be ornamental. 

Not, of course, that the ornamentist denies 
in the least the supreme beauty of natural form 
and colour, or thinks for a moment to improve 
upon it, as some seem to imagine, who insinu- 
ate that he proposes to surpass nature, pre- 
sumes to “paint the lily,” and so on. On the 
contrary, he is modest enough to recognise the 
impossibility of even approximately copying 
anything without the sacrifice of something 
which is more immediately to his purpose 
than any fact of nature—consistency namely, 
fitness, breadth, repose ; and is content, there- 
fore, to take only so much of natural beauty 
gs We can turn to use. He reculates Ins 

B 2 


A Nature in Ornament. 


appetite, that is to say, according to his 
digestion. | 

Such self-denial on his part is not by any 
means a shirking of the difficulties of the situa- 
tion. In art nothing is easy, except to such 
as have a natural faculty that way. It is not 
every one who finds it easy to make a striking 
study from nature; but that comparatively 
elementary accomplishment does demand 
ability of a lesser kind than the production of 
a picture in which there is design, unity, style, 
and whatever else may distinguish a master- 
work of the Renaissance from a study of 
to-day. 7 

In like manner, the mere painting or carving 
of a sprig of foliage is within the reach of every 
amateur ; but to adapt such foliage to a given 
position and purpose, to design it into its place, 
to treat it after the manner of wood, stone, 
glass, metal, textile fabric, earthenware, or 
what not, demands not only intelligence and 
inborn aptitude, but training and experience 
too. 

It is the easiest thing in the world to ridicule 
such decorative treatment ; but it would puzzle 
the scoffer if he were asked to pause a moment 
in his merriment and point out a single 
instance of even moderately satisfactory de- 
coration in which a more or less non-natural 


Introductory. 5 


treatment has not been adopted. The fact is, 
the artist has not yet arrived at a point where 
he is able to dispense altogether with art. 

It is his misfortune (more so nowadays 
than ever it was) that it is extremely difficult 
for him to make up his mind precisely as to 
the relation of art to nature. That it is 
dependent upon nature, more or less, is 
obvious. Only by way of paradox is it 
possible to contend, like Mr. Whistler, that 
“nature is very seldom right.” Nature is 
our one and constant model. The question 
is as to how freely or how painfully, how 
broadly or how literally, how individually or 
how slavishly, we shall render the model 
before us, how much of it, and what of it, we 
shall depict. And this is a question which, 
if not quite beyond solution, must be solved 
by each man according to his idiosyncrasy, 
and that only after much anxiety and doubt 
and difficult self-questioning. 

It is the good fortune of the decorator, 
the ornamentist, the worker in any of the 
more dependent arts, to be comparatively free 
from such incubus of doubt. In his art there 
is much less room for hesitation. For him 
to adopt the realistic creed would be to deny 
his calling, and to cut himself off from the 
art of his adoption: for the very idea of 


6 Nature in Ornament. 


ornament implies something to be ornamented, 
and accordingly to be taken into account. 

A man is bound, by the very adoption of 
any one of the applied arts, to draw the line 
at realism so soon as ever it is opposed to the 
application of his art. In other words, the 
purpose to which his art is put indicates to 
him the limits of possible realism. And so, 
while the dispute about realism is still at its 
height so far as literature, the drama, and even 
painting are concerned, the question as to the 
adaptation of natural forms to ornamental 
design has resolved itself, for all who know 
anything of the subject, into inquiry as to the 
degree and kind of modification calculated 
to render natural forms applicable to orna- 
ment and the various purposes to which it 
is put. 

This modification of natural form to orna- 
mental purpose we are accustomed to call 
“conventional.” In accepting this term, how- 
ever, we must be careful to distinguish con- 
vention from convention, and especially from 
that academic acceptation of the term which 
would give us to understand that the modi- 
fication of nature has been done for us, and 
that we have only to accept the (@lassie 
Medieval, Renaissance, or other more or less 
obsolete rendering at hand. As though the 


Introductory. 7 


tombs of buried peoples were heaven-sent 
habitations for live men ! 

The one thing to be insisted upon in refer- 
ence to convention is that it has zot been 
done for us once and for all, that we have to 
do our own conventionalising ; and not only 
that, but that we have to do it again and 
again, each time afresh, according to the work 
in hand. It is only by this means that art in 
ornament subsists and grows: when it ceases 
to grow, decay sets in of course. 

To accept a convention ready-made is to 
compromise your own invention; to go on 
copying the accepted types, be they never so 
beautiful, is just to stifle it. But one must 
be familiar with them : one must be aware of 
what has been already done in the way of art, 
as well as conversant with nature. Simply 
to study nature is not enough. We have to 
know how artists of all times have interpreted 
nature ; how the same artist, or artists of the 
same period, treated natural form differently, 
according to the material employed, conform- 
ably with the position of the work, in view of 
the use it was to serve. Knowing all this, 
and being perfectly at home in the world of 
nature, one may set to work to conventionalise 
on one’s own account—and with the best 
possible chance of success. 


8 Nature in Ornament. 


Those who most keenly feel the need in 
ornament of a quality which the modern 
nature-worshipper delights to disparage, will 
be inclined to pray that they may be pre- 
served from some of their allies. There is, 
or was not long ago, a class of ornament in 
vogue, which appears to have originated in 
the idea that you have only to flatten out 
any kind of natural detail, and arrange it 
symmetrically upon arbitrary lines, and the 
end of ornament is achieved. 

Decorative design is not so easy as all that. 
To emasculate a natural form is not to fit it 
for ornamental use, and to distribute detail 
according to diagram is not to design. The 
result say be conventional, but it is not the 
kind of convention here advocated ; one touch 
of nature is worth all the mechanical and life- 
less stuff of that kind that ever was done. 

One hopes, and tries to think, that this 
sort of thing is dying out, if not quite dead 
already; but then one flatters oneself so 
readily that what has been proved absurd 
must be extinct, or moribund at least ; until, 
perhaps, an enforced stay among the Philis- 
tines brings us face to face with the evidence 
how very much it is alive. We have only 
weeded it out of our little garden plot ; about 
us is a wide world where itisrampant. There 


Introductory. 9 


is no hiding it from ourselves, there is life in 
the old dogma yet ; and, alas, in many another. 

It is still as necessary as ever to deny the 
claim of merely geometric reconstruction to 
represent the due adaptation of natural forms 
to decorative needs. It is no more fair to 
take this ridiculously childish work to repre- 
sent conventional design than it would be to 
instance the immature studies of some raw 
student as examples of naturalistic treatment. 
Compare the best with the best. Compare 
the ceramic painting of Sevres with that of 
ancient Greece, China, or Japan; compare 
the work of Palissy with that of the potters 
of Persia and Moresque Spain; compare the 
finest Aubusson carpet with a Persian rug of 
the best period; compare the earlier Arras 
(such as we have at Hampton Court) with the 
most illusive of modern Gobelins tapestry ; 
compare the traditional Swiss wood-carving 
on the chalet fronts at Meyringen and there- 
abouts with the most ingenious model pro- 
duced in the same district for the English 
and American tourist; compare the peasant 
jewellery of almost any country except our 
own (we never seem to have had any) with 
the modern gewgaws which have taken its 
place; and who would hesitate to choose the 
more conventional art? 


10 Nature in Ornament. 


Conventional treatment, it will be seen, is 
no mere stopping short of perfect rendering, 
no bald excuse for incompetence. It is pur- 
posed presently to show that, if it does not on 
the one hand consist in the substitution of the 
diagram of a thing instead of its life and 
growth, neither does it mean the mere distor- 
tion of natural details, nor yet that mechanical 
repetition of ancient conventions which is a 
weariness to every one concerned in it. Our 
rendering of natural form must be our own, 
natural to us; but without some sort of con- 
ventionality (if we must use the word) deco- 
ration is impossible. There is no art without 
convention ; and your most determined realist 
is in his way as conventional as the best, or 
worst, of us. 

It is not the word conventional for which 
contention is made, but that fit treatment of 
ornament which folk seem agreed to call by 
the title, more especially when they want to 
abuse it. By whatever name it is called, we 
cannot afford to let go our hold of that some- 
thing which distinguishes the decorative art 
of every country, period, and master, from the 
crude attempts of such as have not so much 
as grasped the idea that there is in art some- 
thing more than a dishing up of the raw facts 
of nature. 


L[ntroductory. 11 


Work as nearly natural as man can make 
it, though not in itself decorative, may be at 
times available in decoration. But forms de- 
naturalised by men alike: ignorant of the 
principles and unskilled in the practice of 
ornament, and more than half contemptuous 
of design to boot, are of no interest to any 
one but their authors, if even to them. Nature 
and art are not on such bad terms that to be 
unnatural is to be ornamental. 


12 Nature in Ornament. 


Li, 


ORNAMENT IN NATURE. 


NATURE being admittedly the primal source 
of all our inspiration, it is rather curious to 
observe the limited range within which we 
have been content to seek ideas, how we have 
gone on reflecting reflections of reflections, as 
though we dared not face the naked light of 
nature. 

With all the wealth of suggestion in the 
world about us, and the never-ending variety 
of natural detail, the types which have sufficed 
for the ancient and medizval world, and for 
that matter for ourselves too, are, compara- 
tively speaking, very fewindeed. How largely 
the ornament of Egypt and Assyria is based 
upon the lotus, the papyrus, and the palm! 
The vine, the ivy, and the) olive, the miettee 
and the oak, together with the merest remin- 
iscence of the acanthus, went far to satisfy 
not only the Greeks but their Roman and 
Renaissance imitators as well. 

Gothic art went further afield, and gathered 





Proto-Tint, by James Akerman London W.( 


Japanese Koses. 





Ornament in Nature. 13 


into its posy the lily and the rose, the pome- 
granate and the passion flower, the maple and 
the trefoil, but still only a comparatively small 
selection of the plants a-growing and a-blowing 
within sight of the village church. Oriental 
art is more conservative still; in it a very 
few types recur continually, with a monotony 
which becomes at last tedious. One wonders 
what Chinese art would have been without the 
aster and the peony, or Japanese without the 
almond blossom and bamboo, what Arab 
ornament would be but for the un-leaf-like 
leaf peculiar to it. 

One is struck sometimes by the degree of 
variety in the treatment which a single type 
may undergo in different hands; more often 
it is the sameness of the renderings which 
impresses us. 

Probably in the case of no single plant have 
the possibilities in the way of ornamental adap- 
tation been exhausted, and in many instances 
the very plainest hints in the way of design 
have not been taken. 

The rose, for example, has been very 
variously treated ; but comparatively little use 
has been made of the fruit, or of the thorns, 
or of the broad stipules at the base of the 
leaves. We have to be grateful when the 
buds, with their boldly pronounced sepals, are 


14 Nature in Ornament. 





zt. Various tendrils, from nature. 


once in a way, turned to ornamental account 
(Plate 65 and pp. 131, 132): 

The Japanese roses on Plate 2 are some- 
what directly inspired by nature, but then 
they are not very ornamentally treated. They 
might almost have been drawn directly from 
nature. It is mainly the simplicity and direct- 
ness with which they are rendered which gives 
them some decorative quality. 

Take the conventional vine again, with its 
stereotyped leaves and prim grapes. And its 
tendrils, how seldom they have suggested more 
than a rather meaningless wriggle, useful, no 
doubt, to fill an awkward gap in the composi- 
tion, but without either character or beauty. 

Probably no feature of flower growth has 
been more badly treated than the tendril. 
Artists have thought themselves free to add a 
tendril to any plant whatsoever, and whereso- 


Ornament in Nature. 15 





2. Vine tendrils, from nature. 


ever it pleased them. The clinging character 
of the bindweed, the hop, and plants of that 
kind, has suggested to artists who look with- 
out their eyes the necessity of support of some 
kind, and they have accordingly provided the 
tendrils nature has denied, neglecting all the 
while the peculiarly decorative character of 
the twining stem. Designers have seldom 
taken much account of the essentially orna- 
mental way in which plants like the nasturtium 
and the clematis attach themselves to what- 
ever they can lay hold on by their leaf-stalks ; 
nor have they rendered in design the suckers 
by which the ivy and the Virginia creeper 
adhere to the wall. It is so much simpler to 
provide convenient tendrils than to study 
nature. 

And what tendrils they have provided ! 
All of one pattern ; whereas in nature they 


16 Nature in Ornament. 


are delightfully diverse. How vigorously the 
mature and woody tendril contrasts with the 
silky growth of the young shoots groping for 
something to support them! How different 
the branched tendril of the pea from the 
simple bryony tendril, and both from that of 
the vine! Certain poets of a past genera- 
tion thought fit to compare the tresses of 
their lady-loves to this last; and there was, 
perhaps, a certain suggestion of the corkscrew 
in both to warrant the comparison ; but what 
a lively corkscrew the tendril is, how friskily 
it twists and twirls about, and how gaily it 
starts off, as it were, on a fresh lease of life! 

It is too exclusively in the leaf, the flower, 
and the fruit, that the ornamentist seems to 
have sought his model. The leaf-bud, for ex- 
ample, whether as giving character to the bare 
twigs (Plates 3 and 8) or conveniently softening 
the angle between the leaf-stalk and the stem, 
has been comparatively neglected: one type 
of bud at all events has usually done duty for 
all. The thickening of the leaf-stalk, again, at 
the joint with the stem, has rarely been made 
use of ; nor yet the quite young shoot, which 
not only fills the empty space about the stalk, 
but gives an opportunity, most invaluable in 
design, of contrasting smaller detail with the 
larger forms of the general design. 





Ftuunr 






a 


4 






i 
hs 


ks GER | 








“fl Horse(hestnid 


"I 
2 yt 
J Beh T. 
D 4 so! 
~s - ¢ mT a Saal 
S cot UN RUT 
S x, aie 
2 a 
, 
Sy & . 
% i = 
. Y wa a 
A A A a ws 
Ae A A A |e 5 mtn 


Beech 





“Puoto-Tint, by James Akerman,london W.C 


Budding branches,from Nature. 





Ornament in Nature. Ey 


The stipules of the leaves, which also enrich 
the meagre joint, have been equally left out 
of ornament, characteristically ornamental as 
they are in the pea, for example, the sow 
thistle, and the passion flower. But even in 
the less marked form in which they appear 
in the hop, the medlar, the common nettle, 
and numberless wayside plants, they are worth 
an attention which they have not often 
received. 

Nature seems to neglect no opportunity ; 
the very scars left on the stems of certain 
trees, such as the horse-chestnut, form a kind 
of decoration. Even in the scarred stalk of 
an old cabbage you may see pattern. In the 
case of the palm, the remains of the leaves of 
years past resolve themselves still more plainly 
into ornament; and for once the Roman 
sculptors, who saw palm-trees growing about 
them, adopted the idea in the decoration of 
their columns. The Indian rendering of the 
same notion, on Plate 77, is yet more conven- 
tional ; but there is no doubt as to the origin 
of that zigzag. Was it so, perhaps, that the 
idea of decorating columns in zigzag, common 
enough in Norman architecture, originated ? 

In Greek ornament and its derivatives 
(Plates 11, 12, &c.), use is made of the sheath 
to clothe the branching of the spiral stems, but 

C 


18 Nature in Ornament, 





3. Romanesque ornamentation of the stem. 


there is still much to be learnt from the way 
in which nature wraps round a stalk with 
leaves, sheaths it, hides it, discreetly discloses 
it (Plate 4). he leaf scems sometimes to 
close round the stem so that that has almost 
the appearance of growing through ; so much 
so that the “thorough-wax? (Game plate), 
owes its name to that appearance. Still more 
plainly does the stem seem to grow through 
where the leaves are opposite and grow 
together round it, as in the teasel and the 
honeysuckle. 

The arbitrary ornamentation of the stem 
in the Romanesque details above, indicates 
a feeling on the part of the artist that some- 
thing is needed to relieve the baldness of a 
stem. That something Nature is very ready 
to suggest, as the Pompeian bronze-worker 


| Leaves sheathing stem 


Stem Growing through 
SAN I thef Leaves 


Wt 
i Sheathes 


\\ 
| 


Uy, \R 
wrapped round \¥ 
by [eaves \jF_ 





J Akerman, Photolith London 


Natural leaf sheaths 





Ornament in Nature. 


realised when he went to the river- 
me for a reed as “motif” for the 
ornamentation of his candelabrum. 

Certain fruits have, as I said, 
been made use of in design, either 
as affording convenient masses in 
the composition or, like the grape 
and the pomegranate, for reasons 
of symbolism. The smaller fruits 
have seldom had justice done to 
them. Bunches of berries are com- 
mon enough in ornament, but they 
are just berries, without as a rule 
the character of any particular 
plant. Yet how various they are 
in nature, and how differently 
they grow! This is indicated, 
however inadequately, on Plate 5. 
Space fails in which to illustrate 
fis part of our subject at all 
fully; but only compare the bryony 
with the spindle-berry, the snow- 
berry with the privet, the solanum 
with the laurel, the aucuba-berry 
with the barberry, and you will 
see that neither are berries all of 
one shape, nor do they grow 
always in one way—in nature, that 
is to say. 


C2 





42 bart ofa 
Pompeian 
candelabrum. 


20 Nature in Ornament. 


In the seed-vessel there is yet greater 
variety of natural design, in many cases most 
ornamental. The pea-pod has been slightly 
used in Renaissance ornament, in the anthe- 
mion for example below, and on Plates 45 
and 46, where it is most effectively and 
characteristically treated. 

On Plate 6 are a variety of cressworts in 
seed, indicating how 
in a single and un- 
pretending family of 
plants there may yet 
be considerable va- 
riety and character 
in the seed-vessels. 

Sai Om | late 
7 are some studies 
of the open pods of 
the common broom 
curling up as they dry 
in the sun, strictly > Bcilsctc 
copied from nature, 
but almost ready-made, as it seems, to the 
hand of the ornamentist. 

The dried husks out of which flowers and 
seeds alike have fallen are often delightfully 
ornamental, as for example in the salvias, 
where they form at intervals a sort of crown 
round the stalk just above the starting point 








“Puote-Tint? by James Akerman,London.W.C. 


Various berries from Nature. 





Ornament in Nature. 21 


of the leaves. In certain thistles and kindred 
plants, the balls of seed-down are scarcely 
more beautiful than the silver-lined calices, 
from which the feathery seed has flown ; 
they shine in the sun like stars. 

Very considerable ornamental use has been 
made of the bursting of the full pomegranate 
feuit (Plates 73 and 87 and pp. 74, 75, 76, 77, 
139, 140). It is strange that the effective 
treatment of this symbol has not suggested 
the availability of other opening seed-vessels, 
the horse-chestnut for example and other 
nuts, the pod of the iris, and so on. 

In the representation of fruits it is usually 
the ripe fruit that is given; but there is often 
quite as much if not more character in the 
unripe ; and some variety of form and size is 
very desirable. 

The leaf in ornament is usually attached 
in a rather arbitrary way to the stalk, without 
sufficient heed to the twist and turn of the 
natural leaf, or to the angle at which it leaves 
the stem, to the length and thickness of its 
stalk, and to the way alternate leaves, say 
those of the lime, pull the stem out of the 
straight and give a zigzag line—in all of 
which there is character, and possibly a hint 
in design. | 

Look at the poppies in the corn. Scarce 


22 Nature in Ornament. 


One of them [ever eets) Over the. chicka impme 
neck, which comes of hanging down its heavy 
head so! long when it is a bud (sce pai): 
There is always a tell-tale nick in the stalk of 
the full-blown flower, hidden it may be by 
drooping petals, but plain enough when they 
have dropped off and the seed-urn is left 
naked. It does not stand up straight and 
stiff like a barrel on a 
pole, but is poised with 
a subtlety characteristic 
always of the natural 
line as distinguished 
from the mechanical. 

Notice — how ‘the 
apple-tree blossoms 
(Plate 3); “In edelr 
bunch a single topmost 
flower always opens 
first; S@=) than eit 
quite a common thing 
to see a white flower 
nestling among its five pink buds. Then in 
the case of the oak, the empty cup (see Plates 
9g and 74) is a characteristic variation on the 
acorn shape, and there is usually at the end 
of the fruit-stalk a withered button or two, 
never to arrive at due development, which may 
be turned to account in design (Plate 9). 





6. Unequally divided oak-leaf, 
from nature. 





J Akerman Photolith London 


Some seed vessels from Nature. 





Ornament in Nature. 23 


The gall-fly, again (same plates), comes to 
the help of the artist, and furnishes him with 
a further variety of forms more or less fruit- 
like in appearance, growing often in places 
where fruits would never be, on the unequal 
leaf forexample. I have counted rosy clusters 
of a dozen and moreon a singleleaf. Besides 
the soft oak-apple, associated in our boyish 
minds with King Charles, and the hard ink- 
gall which decorates the bare boughs in winter, 
there is a canker which attacks the leaf-bud 
and results in something rather like a small 
fir-cone. 

Every one is familiar with the beautiful 
fearaery- burr of the rose: there are other 
rose-galls, peculiar to the leaves, looking like 
little beads of coral on their surface. 

In the poplar too, the prominent gall-knob 
at the base of the leaf-stalk is distinctly 
characteristic. Almost every plant, in short, 
is attacked by its hereditary enemy, that 
seldom fails to leave his mark behind him, 
suggestive, it may very likely be, of orna- 
ment. And so with great part of the vicissi- 
tudes to which vegetation of all kinds is 
subject—the ceasing of the sap to flow, the 
drying of the leaves, the spread of some 
parasitic growth, and so on. 

Historian and poet find in the misfortunes 


24 Nature in Ornament. 


and death of their characters a pathetic 
interest: the ornamentist may discover in 
the very decay of vegetation, apart from 
any sentimental interest, at least incident, 
character, and colour. 

The vicissitudes of plant life, it may be 
said, are accidental, and what has accident to 
do with design? The very word implies, no 
doubt, the total absence of design. For all 
that, it is in some measure owing to the 
elimination of whatever is accidental in nature, 
that conventional ornament is apt to be so 
tame, and that the orthodox seems doomed 
to be dreary. 

There is nothing, strictly speaking, acci- 
dental in design; but the designer is bound, 
nevertheless, to take every possible advantage 
of accident, not of course in order to incorpo- 
rate into his work, after the manner of the 
realist, as he calls himself, the awkward or ugly 
traits of nature which others have for obvious 
reasons left out of account, but that he may 
seize upon every freak of nature suggestive of 
characteristic and beautiful design. 

Strict attention to botanic accuracy has 
resulted too frequently in ornament much 
more mechanically exact than anything in 
nature. If natural leaves grow at ordered 
intervals, they do grow, vigorously and vari- 





C.F. KELL, PHOTO-LITHO.8.FURNIVAL ST HOLBORN EC 


Fods from Nature. 





Ornament in Nature. 25 


ously, as if they had something like a will of 
their own. 

The ideal of the horticulturist is a flower- 
head as even as if it had been “struck” geo- 
metrically, a spike of blossoms as trim as a 
clipped yew-tree or a French poodle. That 
is not Nature’s way. Regularly as a natural 
flower-spike may be planned, the actual blos- 
soms have a way of shooting out in the most 
casual manner. You see this very plainly in 
the salvias, for all the gardener’s pains with 
them ; and everywhere, in the woods and in 
the meadows, by the wayside and the river 
bank, Nature never wearies of playing varia- 
tions upon the symmetric plan of plant 
growth. Certain plants, says the gardener, 
have a bad habit of “sporting.” Truly there 
is nothing at all sportive in his reduction of 
all nature to one dead level of sameness. 

Ornament might fairly be compared to 
the growth of a garden, not of a wilderness. 
But if, on the one hand, nature cannot be 
allowed to run wild over this garden, neither, 
on the other, should it be clipped and trimmed 
and formalised until there is no character of 
its own left in it. 

The method of the florist affords a perfect 
example of what zo¢ to do in the way of modi- 
fying natural form. His plan is to eliminate 


26 Nature in Ornament. 


whatever is wayward, occasional, uncommon, 
characteristic. Look at his hyacinth, as 
regular as the curls of a wig, and compare it 
with the wild bluebells. Look at his double 
dahlia: the flower was prim enough in the 
siinple single form, with its obviously even- 
numbered petals insisting upon your count- 
ing them; but what a bunch of ribbons it has 
become in his hands! ‘To reduce a flower to 
the likeness of a rosette is not to make it the 
more ornamental ; and every accident indica- 
tive of a return to natlire 1s a) welcome mclicen 
from such unmeaning evenness of form. 
Those who would limit us to a hard and 
fast rule of growth, betray perhaps their own 
ignorance of the latitude Nature allows her- 
self. We have to acquaint ourselves with the 
anatomy of plants, and especially with their 
growth ; and where it comes to anything like 
natural treatment, we have Tunthey sto. stds 
into account the habits of a plant, its manners 
and customs, so to speak—for which there is, 
of ‘course, if we enquire into the “matter 
good structural reason always. It is, how- 
ever, with the outward form of things that 
the art of the ornamentist has to do, and for 
the most part it will be sufficient for him to 
confine his studies to the visible side of 
nature. Very slight observation will show 


Waloul 


Tilip- QTree 





“Puoto-Tint, by James Akerman London W.C 


Flower & leaf buds. 





Ornament in Nature. 27 


him that Nature is not so careful always 
to emphasise botanical points as are some of 
us, and that she appears often to break her own 
laws: or perhaps it would be more accurate 
to say, she breaks the laws we have been bold 
to make for her. 

At all events plants very often seem to 
grow differently from what science has taught 
us to expect. Against a wall, for example, 
where leaves cannot grow in the normal 
spiral fashion, they will arrange themselves 
quite contentedly on two sides of the stem 
or on one side of it. If that may be so in 
nature, why not also in art? There is only 
one caution necessary against it: that the 
designer must not let it seem as though he 
were ignorant of the way in which a thing 
naturally grows. 

To do full justice to a plant it is not 
enough for the designer to make a drawing 
of it. One has to watch it through the year, 
perhaps through several years, in order to 
seize the moment when it reveals all the possi- 
bilities that are in it. Certain seasons are 
peculiarly favourable to the development of 
certain plants in the direction of ornament, 
In a wet summer, for example, when things 
grow quickly, the apparently confused way 
some plants have of growing is made clear. 


28 Nature in Ornament. 


The stalks are so much longer than usual, and 
the leaves so much further apart, that they 
disclose for once the way the plant grows ; 
and this opening-out of natural growth goes 
some way towards fitting it for the purposes 
of ornament. 

Again, it depends in some cases very much 
upon the season whether the sepals of the 
withered flower remain intact on the ripened 
fruit, and whether the stipules at the base of 
the leaf-stalk and the bracts at the axes of 
the flower-stalks adhere or not. In excep- 
tional seasons, also, fruit-trees begin to bloom 
again whilst the ripe fruit is on the tree. 
And what a vast difference all that makes 
to the designer who would found himself 
always upon nature ! 7 

Many a happy inspiration of design is no 
more than the turning to account some fortu- 
nate accident in nature. You notice, as you 
walk through a clearing in the woods, where an 
oak-tree has been cut down close to the root ; 
and it has sent out a ring of young shoots all 
round it, so as to form a perfect garland of 
oak-leaves on the ground. A few days later 
and you would seek in vain a living, growing 
model for your oak wreath. 

The conventions of artists are not so far 
removed from nature as we are apt to think. 


ee seg TTT TT ane 


ee ren einy 


f 


apnea eapeye rts 





Puoto-Tint, by 


kerman, London .W.C 


Al 


James / 





Ornament in Nature. 29 


Trees do grow in Umbria as Perugino, and Raf- 
faelle after him, painted them. The artist did 
not altogether imagine those graceful sprays 
of leafage, any 







more than Ve- Ea y je s Dro 
ronese evolved a) oD 8 ay cn 
his lovely green- ow OS 4 ay 
blue skies from <p == , 
his imagina- ||| / 2 ifr Wd 


=, 
\, 


tion. You see 



















just such skies C Pag 
i italy: as og 2 NY 
you see also in | Al <a 
Titian’s country re, NS 
the purple hills | I ae \ vie 
; y 
: GZ. Ns 

and _ quasi-con- bie a a 
ventional land- be UMN OT} | At 

: i Jars My] 

7 Bing  / C93 pa 
scapes he put in © LOGY 2 yt ve 
to his pictures. Oa Gre Jane 

BOA St} Mh 

Apropos of Ih TEM Stars ge) 

colour, we are |[| y ing IWS 
too much dis- AVE SP ey 

; £56 Ne nS, 
posed to take it Oi a FOS | 
for granted that 6 Ga ae | & | 
red, blue, purple, Sai AoW = || 
and yellow are -7 Chinese rendering of wistaria— 


old embroidery. 


colours nature 
has reserved for flowers, and that leaves, 
stalks, and so on are only green. But as a 


30 Nature in Ornament. 


matter of fact, the flower-stalk is often more 
in harmony with the flowers than with the 
leaves, as in the begonia, salvia, sea holly, 
and other plants. The leaf-stalk, also, is 
sometimes bright crimson, as in the little 
wild cranesbill and in the sycamore; or 
vivid yellow, as in the case of some poplar- 
leaves. 

Leaves themselves, again, are sometimes 
anything but ereen. Ido not mean taat 
they are merely oreyish, as they oftem “are 
or olive, which they seldom are, or that they 
merely change colour in the autumn, but 
that the foliage is of a delicate brown, as in 
the young growth of the wistaria (which the 
Chinese embroiderer (see p. 29) has meta- 
morphosed into something more like tendrils), 
or madder-coloured, as in the late shoots of 
the oak, briar, hornbeam, and other trees. 
And then what variety of tint there is in the 
backs of leaves: purple as in the wild lettuce, 
rich red-brown as in some magnolias and 
rhododendrons, silver grey as in the alder, the 
poplar, the willow, and some garden plants. 

The Japanese have made admirable use 
of the contrast in colour between the back 
and front of leaves. They will make the 
leaf solid black with white veins, and sketch 
its reverse in outline only with black veins, 


Plate 10. 


= ORNAMENT in NATURE 





“4 Buckwheat 
‘o* 





J Axgerman,Photodith London 


Natural Growtb. 


= 


aie hae 





Ornament in Nature. 31 


counter-changing the colour as frankly as a 
medizval herald did in his treatment of the 
mantling about a shield. 

Whether, then, it is form that we seek or 
colour, everywhere in nature there is material 
for the ornamentist, often, as it seems, almost 
ready made to his hand (Plate 10); but, 
promising as it may be, it is not yet orna- 
ment—it lacks always adaptation to our 
especial purpose. It is by our ¢reatment of 
nature that we justify our use of its forms. 


32 Nature in Ornament. 


ITl. 


NATURE IN ORNAMENT. 


IT is not at first sight obvious how much all 
ornament owes tonature. There is evena still 
surviving superstition that it is designed by 
the aid of the kaleidoscope. 

True it is that the “itch to make patterns” 
was one of the very earliest symptoms of 
that artistic fever to which the human race 
has from the first been liable. Man may or 
may not have begun by scratching animals | 
on bones of other animals, he very soon began 
to scratch ornamental devices. The English 
race scarcely suffers from the malady nowa- 
days. When it does break out in us it may 
be traced probably to some Welsh or other 
Celtic ancestor. But to certain of us, however 
few, it is every bit as natural to trace patterns 
as to draw animals—or to kill them. 

For all that, even the born pattern-designer 
is necessarily, as man, and more especially as 
artist, so intimately acquainted with nature 
that his work is inevitably imbued with it. 





Greek Scrolls. 





Nature 1n Ornament. 33 


In almost every detail of design there 1s, 
whether he be conscious of it or no, a re- 
miniscence of nature. In the most abstract 
design he is accustomed to obey instinctively 
the natural laws of construction and growth, 
so much so that we resent his departure from 
them, and take exception, for example, to the 
scroll, even the most arbitrary, which violates 
the rule and presumes to grow, so to speak, 
both ways at once. 

I have explained at length elsewhere * how 
the Greek honeysuckle ornament, as it is 
called, originated in no attempt to imitate 
natural bud forms, but grew, as one may say, 
out of the useof the brush. The fact remains, 
notwithstanding, that the brush-strokes came 
to range themselves very much on the lines of 
natural growth—all the more readily, of course, 
because of the memories or impressions of 
plant form stored away in men’s brains. The 
fact is those memories, vague as they may 
be, prompt the ornamentist at every turn in 
design. 

What we call the acanthus scroll seems to 
have grown simply out of the desire to clothe 
with some sort of leafage the mere spiral 
lines with which archaic ornament, whether 
in Greece, or Northern Europe, or the Fiji 

* *Some principles of Every-day Art,’ p. 104 e¢ seg. 

D 


Ral Nature in Ornament. 


Islands, instinctively set out ; which spiral line 
not only occurs in many shells and in the horns 
of animals, but results inevitably from a cer- 
tain natural action of the draughtsman’s wrist. 

he) Greek serolls (ons Plate~ 1m, consist 
practically of little more than branching 
spirals, with just a husk of something like 
foliage to mask the dividing of the stem: the 
lilies and the like are minor features obviously 
put in to fill up; they form no integral part 
of the main purpose. 

The Roman scroll (Plate 12) is plainly 
more full (of sap it seems to bes bursting 
out into leafage; but it remains only a de- 
velopment of the Greek idea: it is simply a 
spiral clothed in conventional leafage, devised 
primarily to disguise its lines, and especially 
the branching of the lines. What is the root 
and origin of the acanthus scroll—not any 
attempt to reduce the acanthus to ornament, 

but a desire to clothe 
wii the lines of the scroll. 


We Archaic Greek orna- 
ils 


ment is made up mainly 
Vy of spiral lines and groups 
Nis Nils of brush-strokes. On 
\ VN \\ iW, duced two typical acan- 
a ee thus leaves to brush- 

8. Acanthus leaves reduce 


Plate: 12° = shave were 
to brushwork. work, in order to show 

















Ti Oto aewo\y 











F. KELL, PHOTO-LITHO,8,FURNIVAL ST HOLBORN,E-C 


Acantbus Sculpture & brushwork. 








Cc 


“Proto -TIntT, by Jomes Akerman. London. W. 


32 A@siQn. 


4 


of the same Frie 


VS 


Versiot 





Nature in Ornament. 


how, starting with 
the idea of deco- 
rating bald lines 
with brushwork, a 
painter, haunted as 
we all must be by 
the ghosts of natu- 
ral growth, might 
have arrived at 
something uncom- 
monly like the con- 
ventional Classic 
leafage. And 
again, on Plate 14, 
I have translated a 
scroll more or less 
of my own into the 
same language of 
the brush. It is not, 
of course, meant to 
imply that that is, 
as a matter of fact, 
how the acanthus 
scroll came about, 
but that it might 
have been deve- 
loped in that way. 
That fable about 
Callimachus and 
the Corinthian 





A 


g. Simple acanthus leafage. 


Do2 








36 Nature in Ornament. 





to. Step between wave and acanthus scroll—Roman mosaic. 


capital is the invention of a poet, not of a 
practical ornamentist. 

Again, on the Roman pedestal on p. 35, 
where there is no scroll and no branching 
and no great variety of foliation, one may see 
very plainly indeed how the familiar type of 
foliation may have grown out of the very 
simplest idea of clothing a straight line. It 
is one step, just one step, beyond the Greek 
bay-leaf pattern (Plate 81): instead of simple 
bay-leaves in pairs we have opposite groups 





“Puoto -TinT; by James Akerman, London, W.C 


Vetails of Mosaic from. Carthage. 





Nature in Ornament. 27 


of five, not separate leaves, but massed together 
sculpturesquely, forming at the junction of 
the groups the “ pipes” so conspicuous in the 
full-grown Classic scroll. 

In the Roman mosaic border on p. 36 is 
an indication of the growth of a very similar 
idea ; a simple wave stem is supplied with 
a spiral offshoot, and both are clothed with 
leaflets of the very simplest description. 
Serrate or subdivide such leaflets, and we 


12. Oak-like leafage. 





should not be far from 
the familiar arabesque. 

Something of the 
kind does in fact occur 
in the mosaic detail 
from Carthage on 
Plate 15, which looks 
almost like the next 
step forward in the 
development of the 
scroll. 

Such a system of foli- 
ation once invented, 
it was easy and natu- 
ral enough to make 
the detail more or less 
like some natural leaf. 


It has been made to resemble the acanthus and 
the olive ; and it is clear, by the acorns accom- 


38 Nature in Ornament. 


panying it, 
that it was 
used also to 
represent the 
oak, The 
quasi - Classic 
scroll of the 
Renaissance 
assumes at 
times also a 
distinct _re- 
semblance to 
the vine. This 
13. Vine-like See cece from the Jubé at is very plainly 

seen in the 
leafage from the famous Jube at Limoges 
(above). Judging by this particular instance, 
one might pretend that the stock pattern of 
conventional foliage 
was suggested by the 
vine. The vine-leaf is 
here as unmistakable 
asthe) relationmonarne 
ornament to the An- 
tique; 7; lhe sdetailiiima 
question belongs of 
course to a transition 
period] It) halts ibe- 
tween two opinions. 








ik iA 


14. Crocket-like foliage, from 
Limoges. 





CFE PhoteLitho, 8 Furnivel X.Eolbare,E.€ 


Transitional Scroll, D.Hopfer. 





Nature in Ornament. 39 








15. Modern modification of Classic leafage. 


You see the hesitation, perhaps, more plainly 
still in the bracket from the same source 
(No. 14). That was plainly inspired by Classic 
art; but the sculptor was more accustomed 
to carve Gothic crockets than Roman scrolls. 
The result is ornament which, but for associa- 
tion of ideas, would never suggest the notion 
of the acanthus. A very characteristic and 
individual modern rendering of the old theme 
is given above, the design, apparently, of the 
late Godfrey Sykes. 

Had the Classic scroll really been only a 
conventional treatment of the acanthus, it 
would have been difficult to understand how 
the sculptors stopped short at that one type, 
and did not attempt to manipulate other forms 
of leafage in the same way. That merely 
abstract leafage should, on the other hand, 
eventually remind us of olive, oak, or acanthus 
leaves, is readily understood. 

The Gothic scrollery of Hopfer (Plate 16) 
is very remote indeed from the acanthus. 
The spirit of the Renaissance was already in 


40 Nature in Ornament. 


the air in the time of Hopfer, and probably 
influenced his work. If it did so to any extent, 
it shows how differently men could interpret 
the same notion. If it did not, it shows how 
from different directions they arrived at some- 
thing of the same kind. There is nothing of 
the acanthus here—the foliation is more sug- 
gestive of the thistle—but yet there is in the 
design a family likeness to Classic and Re- 
naissance types. The more naturalistic flowers 
introduced to fill up remind one distantly of 
the lily-like additions to the Greek scroll 
(Plate 11), and even the birds, too natural 
for the foliage they inhabit, have their counter- 
parts in Roman and Renaissance arabesque. 

In the typical Renaissance arabesque the 
idea is still to clothe lines in themselves merely 
ornamental ; and in the best work these lines 
remain always apparent through the clothing 
(Plates 96 and 105). But that the Italians of 
the Cinque Cento did not allow themselves to 
be hampered by any consideration of natural 
possibility, still less of probability, is shown 
by their indulgence in the absurdities which 
deface many of their most graceful compo- 
sitions—_such for example as da Udine’s in the 
Loggie of the Vatican, and those of Giulio 
Romano at the Palazzo del T at Mantua, one 
of which is given on Plate 17. 





Puoro-Tint, by Jemes Akerman,London .W.C 


Painted Wall Fanel, by Giulto Romano. 


a 
‘| 


ete 





Nature in Ornament. AI 


The Italian of the sixteenth century was 
seldom very particular how he arrived at his 
effect, so he arrived at it—the end justified 
the means with him ; but, little as he cared 


16. Seventeenth century scroll— 
oulle. 





for natural growth, he 
could not do without 
it, and his most un- 
natural ornament 
bristles with natural 
details. 

Phe ornament 
round) 7 the. “fatence 
dishes on Plate 18 
(a class of ornament 
commonly distin- 
cuished as_ Raffael- 
lesque) begins plainly 
with the idea of purely 
ornamental lines. It 
is another develop- 
ment of the foliated 
line. Both lines and 
masses are here ob- 
viously quite arbi- 
trary, suggested by 


ornamental considerations ; but, almost in spite 
of the artist, they take the form of winged head, 


dolphin, leaf, flower. 


That fault already re- 


ferred to of growing two ways at once, which 


A2 Nature im Ornament. 





SS 
) G, Naas Rome: BNez es 
2 A \. BAY ihe @, = Lay 


17. Details of Romanesque ornament. 





may be here observed, is a very common de- 
fect of Italian arabesque—as of Arab art also, 
although in it the detail is so vem, damune- 
moved from life that the defect is less apparent. 
Even in its degradation, however, the Renais- 
sance arabesque never quite let go the thread 
of nature ; and in the hands of Boulle (p. 41) 
it blossomed out during the seventeenth cen- 
tury into something more distinctly floral than 
the purer scroll of the Cinque Cento. 

In Romanesque ornament, which is in the 
first instance only a rude rendering of Roman 
detail, there is, towards the twelfth century, 
some return to nature. The details above, 
for example, are not to be traced to any 
natural type, but they are alive with remi- 
niscences of nature. It is plain, nevertheless, 
always, from the freedom of the rendering, 
that the primitive idea was not to reproduce 


lly 


Proro-Tint, by 


Lustre Dishes 16"? C 


tury. 


James 


Akerman 


London .W.C 


’ 
‘ 
A 
H 
N 
{ 
‘ 
' 
i 
Ni 








Nature in Ornament. 43 





18. Details of Early Gothic ornament. 


nature, still less to represent it naturally, but 
only to find a starting-point for design. 

The same may be said with regard to Early 
Gothic ornament, originally little more than a 
carrying on of the Romanesque idea, and 
reminding us at times, even in the thirteenth 
century, unmistakably of Classic detail. 

In some of the details at the head of the 
page may be seen how, eventually, the artist 
went more directly to nature; but though 
you might trace these home, they are as 
yet very arbitrary renderings. And for my 
part I think the earlier and more arbitrary 
Gothic forms by far the more ornamental : 
the stone budding into crockets or other sculp- 
turesque foliation, is to me far more beautiful 
than the would-be natural leaves and flowers 
spread over the architecture of the fourteenth 
century. In other words, the more strict 


44 Nature in Ornament, 


a S 
wv w WAAN 

DPQ ]2_QUx][II LL» 

ESS 





1g. Spiral Persian scroll. 


adherence to the natural type has resulted in 
the less satisfactory ornament. 

The artists of the latest Gothic period seem 
to have realised that themselves. In the 
German tapestry on Plate 19 there is, properly 
speaking, neither leaf nor flower, but only 
ornamental detail corresponding to both. 
The lines are in a way ornamental; but the 
growth is of more account with the designer 
than the line of his ornament. In this re- 
spect it is interesting to compare it with more 
deliberately ornamental arabesque. In its 
vigorous Gothic way it too is a model of the 
use that may be made of nature in ornament. 





Gothic Scroll 





Nature in Ornament. 45 





20. Iris-like details of Persian ornament. 


In the Persian pattern on p. 44, the spiral 
line is decorated in a quite different manner 
from the Classical: it is not so much clothed 
in leafage as relieved by leaf-like touches and 
broken by daisy-like rosettes. It is quite 
certain that no natural type ever suggested 
the design; it was in seeking ornamental 
forms that the painter happened upon some- 
thing which suggests, but only suggests, 
nature. On the other hand, there are forms 
above, which, though scarcely recognisable 
at first, are distinctly formed upon the flower 
of the iris. 

Still more remote from actuality are the 
details of Arab and older Persian ornament. 
And yet the most frequent feature in it is 


46 Nature in Ornament. 





21. Details of early Persian ornament. 


not altogether unlike a folded leaf in profile ; 
and in other shapes (above) a likeness has 
been traced to the unfolding fronds of the 
young fern. Ifthese forms are indeed founded 
upon nature, it only goes to show how far one 
may, perhaps unconsciously, stray from one’s 
starting-point. If they are not, it indicates 
how impossible it is to invent forms which 
shall not in some degree recall the life and 
erowth about us. 

Mohammedan design, we know, purposed 
deliberately to avoid the natural; but, for all 
that, the forms it borrowed from nature are 
perpetually betraying themselves, reminding 
us, if not of leaf or stalk, then of flower and 
bud. It looks as though, try as they might to 


Plate 20. 


~s A Del S 
SS ee Ks 
ONE One Neus 
TE ae 


AN 
9) 
5] OR 
TASS 
Oe OA SOPRA 
= f] penny (E pe GR a 
dy 


mAs 


y 
Se Lae e aS 
ON CR OOF? 
TN Se 
SHO) 


IMCS 








Nature in Ornament. 47 


ta ae 
Lene 


22. Sixteenth century arabesque details. 


( hi iy) 









Et 





evolve ornament out of their inner conscious- 
ness, the Arabs could not altogether silence 
their memories, even though conscience for- 
bade them to represent anything “ on the earth 
beneath.” Doubtless they sinned often un- 
consciously ; but they were foredoomed to sin. 
And so with their Renaissance imitators, 
German or Italian. Whenever they strayed 
from the source of 
Eastern —_inspira- 
tion, it “was ‘.in- 
Vatiably in “the 
direction of  na- 
ture: s Dhete> is 
sometimes growth 
enough in the abs- 
tract Orientalism 
of Flotner and 
23. Rosette in Rouen faier.ce. Holbein to make 





48 Nature tn Ornament. 





24. Chinese foliage, not easy to identify. 


us wish it were more thoroughly consistent. 
One feels the lack of some controlling con- 
science in the growth. 

It is curious to note how, on Llate Zo, 
the deliberately ornamental lines of strapwork 
break out into something like foliation—as 





25- Bouquet of conventional ornament. 


Plate 21. 





C.F, KELL. PHOTO-LITHOD 6 FURNIVAL S7™ HOLBORN.E.C 


Ornamental bouquet 17°" Century 


Ce 
wer ihre 
Pen 

Sip 





Nature in Ornament. AQ 


for the undergrowth 
of filigree it does 
grow. Even Nicho- 
laus Drusse (Plate 
117) does not man- 
gee to get clear of 
natural influence, 
though it must be 
admitted that he 
treated nature with 
very scant respect. 
So in the arbitrary 26. Abstract pea ie not free from 
inlay pattern above, 

the abstract lines of ornament must needs 
break out incontinently into something like 
foliation. 

And again, in the faience pattern on p. 47, 
the painter, working on radiating lines in- 
dicated by the shape of his dish, seems to 
have arrived as a matter of course at a 
rosette suggesting a flower, and calling for 
something like a leaf in connection with it. 

It is not by any means in the scroll alone 
that we trace the influence of nature in orna- 
ment. It is quite a common thing in Oriental 
art to find bouquets of quite conventional 
flower forms. There is an ingenious example 
of this in the Persian plaque on p. 48, in 
which the ornament consists almost entirely 

E 





~ 


50 Nature in Ornament. 


aii Ses 
) CIES 
-(}— Chinese ye 


27. Conventional Chinese flower forms. 





of flower forms, evenly diapered over the dish, 
and yet conforming to the idea of growth. 
The Oriental influence is seen again in 
Plate 21, where the ornament, far removed 
as it is from nature, conveys quite clearly 
the idea of a nosegay. Forms only remotely 
resembling flowers are arranged, with due 
regard to balance, I will not say in imitation, 
but in recollection, of a bunch of flowers, and 
lines are found to connect and support them, 
and give them a sort of artistic coherence. 
The artificiality of the design is obvious, but 
it is the artifice of an artist, and “a uveq, 
accomplished one too. It represents a type 
of ornament suggested by a wealth of flowers, 
where the stalks and especially the leaves go 
for very little. 

There is a considerable amount of tradi- 
tional ornament which was founded, no doubt, 





J. Akerman, Photo-hth. London. 


Book Cover by Owen Jones. 





Nature in Ornament. 51 


J bs] 
e is 





28. Conventional Chinese foliage. 


originally upon natural types lost in the mists 
of long ago; artists have repeated the form 
so often, and at last so perfunctorily, that in 
the end it is as difficult to decipher as a man’s 
signature. One has almost to take it on faith 
that the flowers on p. 50 are asters, peonies, 
and so on. So with the border above, the 
flower is, I suppose, an aster, but what goes 
for leafage belongs to no flower that ever 
erew. 

Even Owen Jones, who laid it down as an 
axiom that the recurrence to a natural type 
was by so much a degradation of design, 
could not do without foliation and growth, 
more or less according to nature. This is 
very plainly shown in the typical example 
geo his work ‘om. Plate. 22: He. had the 
strictest views as to the lines on which orna- 
ment should grow, but he insisted that it 
should grow; and his theory led him in 
practice to something always more or less 
suggestive of nature—because the logical way 
in which he went to work was indeed the way 
of nature. 

E 2 


52 Nature in Ornament. 


IV. 


THE SIMPLIFICATION OF NATURAL FORMS. 


TO conventionalise is in some cases scarcely 
more than to simplify. So plainly is this so 
that the frequent occurrence of certain floral 
forms in decorative design is in part at least 
accounted for by the fact that they could be 
very considerably simplified without losing 
their clear identity. Ihe suntloweg foquexe 
ample (Plate 23) came into fashion” nok 
entirely because of the whimsical folly of a 
few so-called zsthetes, but because its hand- 
some and massive head was such an unmis- 
takably ornamental feature. Foliage and 
flower alike lent themselves to, and indeed 
almost compelled, a broad and simple treat- 
ment; whilst the character of the plant was 
so well defined, that it was difficult by any 
kind of rendering or any degree of conven- 
tionality of expression to eliminate it. It was 
never in danger of being reduced to the 
mere abstraction of a flower, that might have 
been suggested equally by any one of a dozen 
different natural types. 


Plate 23. 


e) 
yn & Ve 
oY SCE 

eA 


a py sila 
Ww 


nt Se, < ! 


S ~~, 
= ~ as 1 
nm 


Re 


SS Ws Se 5 BS (2 p 
SSS AVN 


CF KELL, PHOTO-LITHO,6,FURNIVAL S* HOLBOAN.E Cc 





Sunflowers & Roses by B. J. Talbert. 





Simplification of Natural Forms. 53 











29. Rectangular acorn patterns. 


So also the acorn asserts its identity even 
in the rudimentary form in which it occurs in 
the old German stitching above. 

You may see again in the late George 
Edmund Street’s cleverly contrived panel 
overleaf how a really characteristic and ener- 
getic shape will hold its own. Shorn as it is 
altogether of its leaves, its prickles, the very 
featheriness of its flower-heads, there rests not 
the least doubt that it is a thistle. 

Less emphatic forms lose, when simpli- 
fied, all individual character ; and indeed you 
have only to carry such simplification far 
enough, to reduce the greater part of natural 
forms to one level—I might say perhaps one 
dead level—of convention. 

It is remarkable how slight a modification 
will remove a flower from recognition. An 
alteration of scale is sometimes enough to 
puzzle us. To magnify a flower is in most 
cases to disguise its identity. Draw the 
pimpernel the size of a flax blossom, or the 
flax blossom the size of a mallow, and who 


54 Nature in Ornament. 


is to recognise it, especially when the subtler 
characteristics of texture and the individual 
turn of the petals are conventionalised away ? 
One can never be quite certain that any con- 
ventional five-petalled flower, such as the 
German Gothic rosette on p. 55 for example 
is not meant 
for a rose. 
Even in the 
case of more 
characteristic 
blossoms, like 
the speedwell, 
with its pe- 
tals three and 
One awe make 
put off the 
scent at first 
by unaccus- 
tomed __ pro- 
portions in 
the; flower 
And so with leaves. Failing anything like 
strict accuracy as to their growth—very rarely 
indeed observed in ornament—it is more 
than difficult to distinguish between one 
lanceolate leaf and another: the same shape 
may stand just as well for willow as for bay 
or olive. The heart-shaped leaves in the 





30. Simplified thistle. G. E. Street, R.A. 


Plate 24. 


CONVENTIONAL FLORAL 
ORNAMENT FROM’ 
GREEK VASES 





Vetails of Greek Terra Cotta pamting 


Sey 
pee Pr 











Me i 
fi 
= 
‘ 
SK 
» 
xt 
‘ 
re 
v 
. 





Simplification of Natural Forms. 55 





31. Gothic leaf border—wood carving. 


border above may indicate the poplar or the 
lilac: possibly the carver had in his mind no 
leaf in particular. 

It cannot be said that the danger of mis- 
take in the identity of 
natural forms has de- 
terred the designer 
from simplifying them. 
We find inevery period 
of art floral or foliated 
forms which may be 
meant for this or that, 
but which it is quite 
impossible to identify 
with any degree of certainty. The Gothic 
border below may stand for a rose, for all we 
know ; the Greek border A on Plate 24 may 
stand for a convolvulus; and B, I feel pretty 
certain, consists of birch-leaves and catkins. 
The strange leaf in border C on the same 
plate used to puzzle me until I discovered 





32. Rosette or rose? 





33- Gothic leaf and flower border—wood carving. 


56 Nature in Ornament. 


its source in 
nature. It 
proves, as 
you will see 
at a glance 
on this page, 
to be no leaf, 
but a_ seed- 
vessel : soften 
the angularity 
of “the Stem 
pulled out of 
the straight 
by the pods, 
and you have 
the starting- 
point of the 
Greek design. 
There is 
sometimes in 
this | Greels 
pattern an 
indication of 
the way the 
seed - vessels 
split asunder 
# and shed the 

34. Seed-vessels from nature. seeds. The 
identification of this peculiar two-lobed feature 





te 


eects 





don W.C 


Lon 


Proto-Tint, by James Akerman 


“ 


Details of Ancient Captc Embroidenes. 








35- Conventional buds, or seed-vessels ?—marble inlay. 


was all the more difficult, because you see 
in other Greek vases something like the same 
shape doing obvious duty for a leaf. 

The conventional tree, on the same plate, 
is quite impossible to name; the ivy in the 
border above it, on the other hand, is for once 
very clearly indicated; the berries, in par- 
ticular, are very characteristically given. 
Compare them with the more usual Greek 
ivy-berries below. 

Again, in the Coptic embroideries on 
Plate 25,wehave 
heart - shaped 
leaves and tre- 
foils and fruit 
and flower, all 
alike symbolic 
no doubt, but 
without any 
meaning in par- 
ticular to us. 

In the Floren- 
36. Conventional Greek ivy- tine border above, 


leaves and berries. 





58 Nature in Ornament. 


as in the Japanese bor- 
der -here given, we can 
please ourselves as_ to 
whether they are buds or 
seed-vessels that are repre- 
sented. 

Again, the Sicilian tree, 
below, may stand for any- 
thing with a serrated leaf. 
Simplicity could not much 
fuGther co ethan: tae tine 
Roman version of a tree 
ons p.1502 ain the indian 
kinkaub pattern, on Plate 


east 






oy 


= 





37. Japanese border— 
buds or fruits ? 


26, the charaeter 


of the flowers and leaves, no less than 
the growth of the plant, are part and parcel 


































































































































































































38. Conventional tree, from a 


Sicilian silk. 27 betray more or 


of the process of 
weaving employed; 
there is a. dis- 
tinct reminiscence 
of some plant with 
large foot-leaves 
and small stalk- 
leaves, but it would 
be rash to say more 
than that. 

The  Pompeian 
details on Plate 





Indian — Kinkaub” 


from an 


‘Detail 


epee ioe AW 


Wale kts 





Stuplification of Natural Forms. 59 


less a natural source of 
inspiration, but with the 
exception of a_ tendril 
and something like a 
passion flower, there is 
not much in the mosaic 
that one can _ identify ; 
whilst in the painted 
panel the various details 
are so remote from lily 
Or campanula, or what- 
ever may have been their 
starting points, that one 
accepts even the arbi- 
trary way in which they 
are put together. Com- 
pare this Pompeian panel 





fe : 





N-2%O03 2- mp7 “se 


39. Simple Roman tree. 


with the Roman candelabrum on 


p. 133. 





40. Hawthorn 


Again, in the carved door from 
Cairo, Plate 28, the details of the 
flowers are reduced to something 


crocket. | Very nearly approaching to chip- 





i 
trocket. them out, are rather mixed. Even 


carving; the details consist not 
so much of leaves and flowers as 
of cuts of the chisel, an effect all 
the more satisfactory inasmuch as 
the types, as far as one can make 


60 Nature in Ornament. 


so, by the way, they are 
exceptionally natural 
for Arab work. 

ayGotnie: areacas 
elsewhere, we identify 
a plant in many in- 
stances only because 
we expect to | Mid it 
there. Whatever can 
by any stretch of ima- 
gination pass for a 
vine-leaf (Plate 29) we 
accept as such—any 
bunch of berries we 
take for grapes. 

In very many cases 
it is only by the flower 
or fruit that the definite relation of the leaf 
to nature is recognised. The crockets on the 
plate referred to are more like crockets than 
leaves; it is only by the berries and the winged 
seeds that one knows them to do duty for 
hawthorn and maple. One guesses that one of 
the crockets on p. 59 may also be a hawthorn 
leaf. It is only the tendril which gives us to 
suppose that the other is a vine. And so with 
the foliage from Henry the VII.’s Chapel on 
Plate 29.. “But for the acorn) cups; aoseme 
would ever have suspected the carver of having 





42. Late Gothic pomegranate. 





3 
¥ 


Z 
s 
i 


from Pompen. 


4 


aS 


4 
| 


Ve 





Simplification of Natural Forms. 61 














S54 W FG 7 PR 
OCC 












,) 


~\ Vs \ 


Tivssessccssevacsceess cessesesecenessasessssugssesereeseet 


ni 





43, 44. Indian renderings of the poppy. 


had any thought of oak-leaves; and with 
regard to the sprig of painted decoration 
on p. 60, we make up our minds that it stands 
for the pomegranate only be- 
cause it comes nearer to that 
than to any other symbolic 
fruit. 

It is all the more difficult, 
sometimes, to identify the 
plant which is meant, because 
one can never be sure of the 
knowledge, or of the con- 
scientiousness, of the artist. 
The two damascened patterns 
above presumably represent 
the poppy, but, in the one 
case at least, the artist has 
supplied the flower with five 
petals and a calyx—details 
which, if one had _ perfect 
faith in the artist, would com- || 
pletely put one off the scent. | 

One is puzzled also by the 





= . 45. Greek border, 
wiry shoots between the lily- with lily-buds. 


62 Nature in Ornament. 





46. Early Gothic foliated ornament. 


like flowers in the admirably severe Greek 
border on p. 61, and wonders as to the source 
of its inspiration—the Solomon’s seal per- 
haps? 

Any trefoil or cinquefoil’ may have in- 
fluenced, in its turn, the shape of early Gothic 
foliage, such as that above, which is founded, 
as we know, directly upon no natural type at 
all, but is a recollection of a recollectiongon 
a recollection going centuries back. It grew 
out of Byzantine or Romanesque forms, them- 
selves derived from Classic foliage; and it 
was only when the sculptor had arrived, 
through symbolism, at something reminding 
him of clover, or wood sorrel, or hepatica, that 
he began to think of making it more nearly 
like nature. 

It is clear that the carver of themdetal 
on p. 63, had in his mind some natural leaf; 
what that leaf isis net sorceramnn ss Oneron 





Puoro-Tint, by dames Akerman, London WC 


Carved Cabinel Door from Catrro, SKM. 





Simplification of Natural Forms. 63 





47- Natural and ornamental foliage—Early French. 


the charms of Early Gothic is that, conven- 
tional as it is, and in the main of one type, 
there is always a chance of our coming upon 
some touch of nature which brings the work- 
man nearer to us. You can see sometimes; 
in Early French Gothic, how the detail was 





48. Bud-like ornamental forms. 


64 Nature in Ornament. 


CMs 


inspired, as 
Key Viollet le 
ZB Duc points 

out, by the 
ye: Ve fronds of 
Ze US the bracken 

SS\ IWS Z <A [Aa and other 
ENG SS aN VAXS plants; but 


Fa Va the sculptor 


‘49. Peony simplified to form a stencil—H. Sumner. leaves out 


so much, that it is not always easy, even with 
the assistance of Viollet le Duc, to detect the 
natural type. Whether of set purpose or by 
instinct, too, the sculptor chose persistently 
the simplest floral forms, which lent themselves 
to breadth and dignity of treatment. It is 
not surprising that, magnified in stone, they 
should appear to us abstractions. 

In many instances, it is tolerably clear that 
no leaf was intended, but only foliation, no 
particular plant, but growth. And it is 
marvellous how the early Medizval sculptor 
contrived to convey that idea of vitality in 
the stone. In the ‘crockets” so, peeuliany, 
characteristic of early French Gothic, for 
example, he imitated no particular bud, but 
the stone itself seems budding into life. A 
later Gothic instance of that bud-like ornament 
in wood is given on p. 63. 





A OC “a ce A 
a TQS , Novrina r7dy. 


’ yA \\ ( \ 1 
Vf Mul Winchester 


ton OTT Pg Ne 


—_ 


% 1172 ; ; 
0 Ohristchurch<y 
Vine 





Enghsb Gothic Details. 





Simplification of Natural Forms. 65 


How far the 
primitive Gothic 
sculptor could, if 
he had been so 
minded, have 
rendered nature 
im the  coatse - 
stone in which he 
worked, is doubt- 
ful; happily he 
seized that in 
nature which he 
could _—_— express, 
and expressed it 
like an artist. It 
is a1 the very 
quality of an 
ornamentist, that 


he should be 51. Gothic wood-carving. 
willing to omit much that 


he could have put into his 
work had it been to the 
purpose. Inthe peony pat- 
tern on p. 64 Mr. Sumner 
has had the courage to 
leave out whatever could 
not conveniently be ren- 
dered in stencilling. 








LM sec gee ee 


Pectin iigutecsun . lt is eiriois how dit 
F 


66 Nature in Ornament. 


ferent artists, working at different 
ae times in different countries, have 
arrived sometimes at results not so 
very different. There seems to me 
a curious correspondence between 
the detail” of the Indian” jsecoll 
and the late Gothic rosette on 

p. 65, the result, presumably, in each 
53, eusee case, of a sympathetic use of the 
be Gothic. tools the carver had. 

So, again, the fragment of archaic-Greek 
sculpture on the same page is so like certain 
rude stone carving of the Gothic period that 
one would have taken it almost for Medizval 
work. That bulging midrib is characteristic 
of a certain form of Perpendicular carving, 
derived no doubt from beaten metalwork. 
Did Greek and 
Gothic work- 
man alike refer A 
for inspiration ‘ 
to goldsmiths’ 
work, and so 
arriveatsome- 
thing: like tthe ss 
same form? 

Once more 
in the Persian 
details above, 54. Japanese treatment of the iris. 








Plate JO. 


im dy Mlle "Pa 
5 4 Bi ' Ds Nb Ni] Meng | Pe it © " aif 

PA VPA fee ty tl 
ee Ps gf We ON bs sF a 


——— 


fy 
| 


¥ Hl li 
i ‘ 


“fi 
rt aoa th 
E % = # =| | H i fi i f : " i 
| >: Z E 7 eer Ht i ea Wi! 
j i ———— Be j Hi a HI f! i a i) shh 
ie FAO Mh 
i I 4 = ay Ee J , g Ls gel Ral | My Aa a 4 ; 
i : Aus t=. j= ———— a } Is} | Hi 
4 ) | hy ~ ar Ht > ay i 
pS Za i) a 1 
ma 2 fe 
il ih | i ie 1) 7 ‘i 


Ve lI Ete i it M3 
“Ai Se | a ie i a as ; | wn li ‘ Mp: | 
ly, in, uli i il “ail, Tully wl 


4 a Ge A » 
my | NG " G i 
i ci L. | ail 3 th Ihe “ i It. 7, vei y We ih ‘el Vd > 





Indian renderings of the Iris. 





Simplification of Natural Forms. 67 


there is a most marked resemblance to certain 
Decorated Gothic crocket forms—especially 
as they are rendered in stained glass—the play 
of the brush accounting no doubt partly for 
the likeness. 

At other times one is struck by the variety 
in the sundry simplified versions of the same 
plant. There is a wide difference between 
the painted iris and that in niello, on Plate 30 ; 
and between these Indian renderings, again, 
and the characteristic adaptation of the plant 
in the Japanese embroidery on p. 66, in which 
nature is reduced to extreme simplicity with- 
out any loss of character. 

Again, in the panels on Plate 31, modifi- 
cation consists mainly in simplifying the 
natural forms. The leaves, indeed, are elon- 
gated and refined, and, like the flowers, 
arranged to suit the ornamental scheme. But 
the liberties taken with the growth of crown- 
imperial, fritillary, bluebell, and Lent lily, are 
such as would not greatly shock the botanist. 
The lines on which they grow are (organi- 
cally) not altogether impossible. 

At times the simplification resolves itself 
into something very different indeed from 
the actual thing, as in the Italian silk over- 
leaf, in which the ears of corn take the form 
of a distinct pattern; from which we may 

F 2 


68 Nature in Ornament. 


apprehend how easily, from the simplification 
of natural form, the ornamentist glided imper- 
ceptibly into its elaboration. But that will 
form the subject of a separate chapter. 





55. Wheat-ears, simplified or elaborated ? 


PYVA\ IE 








69 


V. 
THE ELABORATION OF NATURAL FORMS. 


IT has been shown in a preceding chapter, 
how the necessity of simplifying natural forms 
led as a matter of course to conventional 
treatment. It will be seen presently, that 
there is sometimes sufficient technical reason 
for the elaboration of the type before us. 

The omission of the superfluous in orna- 
ment is indisputably right. How far it may 
be desirable or permissible to elaborate the 
simple forms of nature, is more open to 
question. It rather suggests to us painting 
the lily or gilding gold. There is a strong 
flavour of artificiality about it. 

As a matter of fact, the practice flourished, 
though indeed it existed long before, in arti- 
ficial times, that is to say during the seven- 
teenth and eighteenth centuries. It would be 
scarcely fair, however, to take everything of 
the kind as an indication of decadence. We 
are bound in justice, no less than in reason, 
to inquire if such elaboration may not have 


70 Nature im Ornament. 


led to some satisfactory results, and what 
those results were. 

It may possibly prove that what was best 
in the later French styles, for example, was 
more or less of the artificially elaborate type. 
The rockwork and the broken scrolls, the gar- 
lands and the trellises, the bows and ribbons, 
and all such frivolities of the later French 
monarchy, have much less to recommend 
them than the patterns of the silks of the 
period. Restraint was out of the question. 
Licence was the order of the day, and kings’ 
mistresses reigned over art. Granting, how- 
ever, the absence of restraint in design, more 
objectionable to us than in French eyes, there 
is in the Lyons silks of the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries not only considerable 
beauty of colour, but quite exceptional inge- 
nuity of design, especially in its relation to 
the technique of weaving ; and it will be time 
well spent to seek out the method, artificial 
though it may be, by which results so beauti- 
ful are arrived at. 

The effect may be so far from nature as to 
be quite characteristically artificial, and yet it 
may turn out that almost every detail in the 
design is directly borrowed from reality. One 
might say, for instance. that in) vriatesss2 
natural forms are removed from nature mainly 





PrHoto-Tint, by James Akerman |.ondon W 


7 ei a4... 17th 248 oa 
Lyons Silk of the 17°’ or 18 Cen? 





The Elaboration of Natural Forms. 71 


by diapering them over with other details 
borrowed from the same source. And this 
was quite the current way of design. Men 
adopted forms more or less natural, probably 
because such forms occurred most readily to 
them. But the natural veining of leaves and 
petals did not present sufficient variety and 
interest of surface for their purpose; and so 
they supplied its place by a subsidiary growth 
of smaller foliage. By the judicious alterna- 
tion of light on dark and dark on light, they 
even went so far as to produce an effect 
equivalent to—not at all resembling, but 
equivalent to—that of shading. Something 
of the same kind is seen again on Plate 33, 
where a sort of shading resolves itself into 
fresh forms of ornament. Those leaves are 
characteristically of the eighteenth century. 
This is a device at all events much more 
appropriate to silk weaving than the futile 
attempts at natural shading which have also 
had their vogue. Besides, in the rendering of 
the details themselves—observe the orna- 
mental serration of the large leaf on Plate 32, 
the cresting of the fruit, its calyx, the diaper- 
ing of the forms generally, and the rendering 
of the smaller foliage—there is such consistent 
artificiality throughout as to give a distinctly 
ornamental character to the design. 


72 Nature in Ornament. 


If the artists of the artificial periods were 
not always tasteful or intelligent, all the more 
opportunity for us to show how, by the 
exercise of intelligence and taste, it may 
be possible to turn their expedients to new 
and better account. 

It was not they, however, who first hit 
upon the expedient. A simpler, bolder, and 
altogether nobler example of the same kind 
of thing is shown on Plate 34, an Italian 
damask of distinctly earlier date. Such a 
design loses very much by reduction to the 
scale of the illustration, and it depends also 
very much for its effect on its fitness to the 
simpler kind of weaving; but on the scale of 
the original, in single-colour damask, it is 
simply perfect for breadth and richness—a 
model of appropriate treatment. That is at 
all events one way of proceeding, namely, 
to design big, bold masses of foliage, and 
to break these again with smaller foliated 
detail. 

That this should be done consistently 
would hardly need to be pointed out, were it 
not that in old work consistency has so fre- 
quently been lost sight of. There is no de- 
- fending flowers and fruits which agree neither 
with one another nor with the leaves in asso- 
ciation with them ; but if the pattern be but 





Puoro-Tint, oy -Jsmes Akerman London WO 


Details of 18” Century Fohage 





The Elaboration of Natural Forms. 73 


homogeneous, it would be absurd to say that 
it should not be constructed on the principle 
exemplified in Plate 34. 

That principle, indeed, dates farther back 
than the Renaissance. The Italians borrowed 
it from the Persians, as the French borrowed 
it from them. The bro- 
cade here illustrated 
(56) is of old Italian 
manufacture, but the 
design is pretty literally 
taken from a Persian 
source. The way in 
which the broad surface 
of the main design, 
itself floral, is broken 
up with smaller floral 
detail, is distinctively 
Eastern. Precisely the 
same principle is in- 
volved in the design 
of the Persian silk on 





56. Floral forms within floral 


forms. Plate -75: You’ see 
it, too, on the pottery of Damascus, and in 
all manner of Oriental ornament. 


A characteristic Persian treatment of the 
pomegranate is shown overleaf, where the 
bursting of the fruit takes a peculiarly 
ornamental bud shape. Other elaborately 


74. Nature in Ornament, 






































































































































57. Pomegranate-berries arranged in bud-form. 


ornamental variations are shown on pp. 75, 
70, 77, 130, 140, and on Plates) 735ancdae 2 
The Italian version (58) is ornamental 
enough, but the artist has not realised that 
the crown of the pomegranate represents the 
sepals of the flower, and has added a sort of 
calyx beneath the fruit. In the eighteenth cen- 
tury version, the seeds are more fantastically 
rendered than ever—they are represented not 
merely by diaper as on p. 77, but by diapers 
as on p. 76. Observe also the ornamental 
scalloping of the rents in the fruit. Natural 


late 4. 


P 











Silk Damask of the 16” Century 





The Elaboration of Natural Forms. 75 














58. Ornamental pome- 
granates. 


form is used, indeed, only 
a5 a means of getting 
variety of texture in the 
silk. 

One great advantage in 
the method of thus break- 
ing up broad surfaces is, 
that the introduction of the 
smaller detail does away 
with any possible appear- 
ance of baldness in the 
design; whilst yet, at a 
sufficient distance from the 
eye, the broad masses 
alone assert themselves. 
You get, in short, breadth 
at a distance, and detail 
on close inspection, each 
without interfering with 
the other. Leaves and 
fruits are very naively 
diapered in the Japanese 
pattern on page 78, de- 
signed presumably for 
weaving. 

With the larger floral 


forms in French silks are usually associated 
(see once more Plate 32) subordinate floral 
details, more on the scale of the detail within 







76 Nature in Ornament. 
the larger detail, 


gee 
as el | |] introduced mainly 

y ae NG | foc the purpose “or 
he m It breaking the back- 
me erounds — Tieismons 
vious that such 
MS i WA: | | undergrowth must 

Ni i nn ee be ornamentalised 
hoe cis no sles accordingly. 

59- Ornamental pomegranate— By this means you 

aoe get a further advan- 
tage in the opportunity it affords of mingling 
in the same design effects of light on dark and 
dark on light. If,; for example, the around 
is dark and the larger details light, and the 
smaller details breaking these dark again, any 
smaller details in light on the dark ground 
will contrast with the dark details on the 
same scale, and create a certain mystery in 
the design, which is of very distinct artistic 
value. 

The substitution of geometric diaper in 
place of subordinate foliation, which occurs, 
for example, in. the Japanese patterngyon 
p. 78, is less absolutely satisfactory—least 
of all so when, as is often the case in silk 
(Plate 32), it takes the, form of imitation 
lace, In actual’ lace there is) periaps mone 
excuse than anywhere for elaborately orna- 








a. cSceRs 
S e a7 
Fas Py 
PDQ VA 
tee 4, 
—* Fe CEL & i 
= gISrd s 
>. a So pie 
: — 





PHoTo-TinT, by James Akerman.London.W.C 


Old Lace, Wory Point. 





The Elaboration of Natural Forms. 77 


mental treatment, 
and there geometry 
seems not to come 
so much amiss. A 
certain artificiality in 
the material seems 
to justify something 
very much like fri- 
volity in the design. 
This refers more es- 
pecially to the fanci- 
ful patterns of the lighter and flimsier lace of 
eighteenth-century frills and flounces. 

A’ more dignified example of lacework, also 
elaborately artificial in its way, is given on 
Plate 35. It is open to the objection of 
combining in one growth flowers of various 
families, but in the general richness this 
effect of discrepancy is to some extent lost. 
The lily, the heartsease, and the picotee do 
not assert their individuality. 

In lace and in certain kinds of embroidery 
ultra elaboration of detail is accounted for by 
the process of work. In stitching there seems 
some reason in making much of the stitches ; 
and this is what lace-workers and embroiderers 
have continually done. 

An equally characteristic, but very different 
kind of elaboration grew out of the conditions 





60. Ornamental pomegranate—old 
German embroidery. 


78 Nature in Ornament. 


of smiths’ work. Given the idea of foliated 
ironwork, and the facilities of cutting, hammer- 
ing, and twisting, it was only natural it should 
take something like the late Gothic forms on 
Plate 36. Some such excuse for elaboration 
makes a confessedly dangerous practice more 
tolerable if no 
safer. 

Another good 
excuse for ela- 
borationis when, 
in what may be 
called fictitious 
detail, the fiction 
is founded upon 
fact, when it is 
the development 
of some natural 
fonm~ (Of; eect 
when the inimaet 
has been given : 
by nature, and 61. Foliated forms geometrically 

diapered. 
the ornamental 
character is only an exaggeration of natural 
characteristics. 

The seeds of the pomegranate already 
referred to are a case in point ine the vem 
broidered fruit on Plate 73 they are repre- 
sented. by a diaper yon ychequersa. a tiene 








“Proto -Tint, by James Akermen Londen we 


~ 
( 


Details of Hanrnered Work 





The Elaboration of Natural Forms. 79 


German embroidery on p. 77 they are indicated 
by a lattice of silk cord, with here and there 
a spangle. 
The most impossible development of the 
Gothic ornaments below and overleaf is par- 
tially accounted 
| for as a remini- 
: scence of some 
flower in which 
the pistil’ was 
very strongly 
pronounced. 
No excuse of 
the kind can be 
urged for the 
treatment of the 
leaves: in. the 
design for wall 
paper on Plate 





37. The more 
or less natu- 
62. Elaborated flower. rally drawn 


leaves are just 

enriched with pattern, which takes the place 

of natural veining, and gives variety of sur- 

face. That personally I think such a proceed- 

ing not altogether unjustifiable, is shown by 
my adopting it. 

Another form of elaboration very common 


So Nature in Ornament. 


in fifteenth and sixteenth century ornament, 
consists in the turning over and curling up of 
the ends and edges of foliation of all kinds. 
Something of the kind occurs indeed in Greek 
and Roman scrollwork; but it is not until 


late Gothic 
tiniest 
it becomes 
a inanked 
and charac- 
teristic -fea- 
ture in 
design,— 
partly, per- 
haps, owing 
to the influ- 
ence of the 
worker in 
iron, just as 
a certain 
bossy cha- 
racterin Per- 
pendicular 
carving 1s 
derived from 





63. Elaborated flower. 


goldsmiths’ work. You see that bossy cha- 

racter in the rendering of the hop on p. 81, 

andin the leaves on pp) Til, 112e1now ane: 
The limits within which the character of 


eOeSe WL, 

4 a £5 ee 

RCCL 
OV ts 


Sa 
Des: Ve Dyisxe 





Wall paper, conventional growth. 





The Elaboration of Natural Forms. 81 


one material may fairly be given to another 
are soon reached. It is clearly a mistake in 
taste to give, as Gothic carvers did, to leaves 
in wood or stone the bulbous look of beaten 
metal, or to give to an embroidered scroll the 
character of forging. But one would be loth 
to give up that very valuable and _ practical 
device in design, 
the “ turn-over,” 
whatever its origin, 

What indeed 
would _ Perpendi- 
cular and Flam- 
boyant ornament 
be without it? The 
Gothic scroll would 
be robbed of half 
i  enercy,. the 
Tudor rose would 
Pemeeanived 1to ‘a °° 64 Bulbous ian ieance tenia 
flat rosette, the 
leafage of Aldegrever (p. 124) would lose al 
its crispness. I have resorted freely to the 
use of overlapping in Plate 38, a wall pattern 
founded upon the artichoke. If you take a 
plant only as a motzfof ornament, and attach 
no further significance to it, you are com- 
paratively free to be-decorate nature. 

There would seem to be in nature some 

G 


bse 





82 Nature in Ornament. 


sort of precedent even! for tie se —tllimme 
of floral growth. Certain ferns grow with 
every appearance of artificiality. There is a 
particular kind of cabbage, much in favour 
with Medizval illuminators, which grows very 
much as though the milliner had taken it in ~ 
hand; and there is a wild flower, not un- 
common in marshy places, which looks for all 
the world as if it must have been designed 
somewhere about A.D. 1500. 

The excellent rendering of the gooseberry- 
leaf on Plate 98 is a further application of 
the manner of the sixteenth century to new 
forms. It reminds one of the vine-leaves of 
Aldegrever, and of certain leaves of the cle- 
matis and other plants ‘treated in the same 
way in some Renaissance carving at Brescia. 
Professor Anton Seder has worked out the 
problem of treating vegetable form @ 
Kenaissance very thoroughly in that sumptu- 
ous work “Die Pflanze.” It might be sug- 
gested that the growth of the gooseberry 
in the example given is rather too rustic for 
the extremely ornamental turn of the leaves. 
The danger of such discrepancy is inherent in 
such treatment, and is seldom completely 
overcome. As it is, this is a most competent 
and indeed accomplished piece of work. 

Once more, to presume to elaborate natural 





“‘Puoro Tint, Ly James Akermon Lendon W.C 


Wall paper founded upon 


@ 


een 
ie 





Lhe Elaboration of Natural Forms. 83 


form is to trench upon very difficult ground ; 
but we cannot afford to shut ourselves off 
from any opportunity in design. It is easy 
enough to dismiss whole schools of thought 
and treatment with a word of contempt. We 
have most of us done so in our time. As we 
erow older we become, let us hope, more just, 
and confess to ourselves that there are more 
things in art and ornament than were dreamt 
of in our philosophy of a while ago. 


84 Nature in Ornament. 


WHE 


CONSISTENCY IN THE MODIFICATION 
OB NAGURE: 


ACCORDING to the use we make of natural 
form, it helps or hinders us in design. The 
flow of line, the grace, the growth, the tender- 
ness of colour, the subtlety of suggestion, 
which so delight us in ornament, would never 
have been evolved from man’s imagination 
apart from natural influences; but nature 
does not provide for us ornament ready 
made; were that so, our occupation would 
be gone. Nature is the starting-point, by 
no means the end, of ornament. 

When Owen Jones went so far as to say 
that in proportion as ornament approached 
natural form it had less claim on us as orna- 
ment, he overstated his case quite as much as 
they who contend, on the contrary, that only 
in so far as it approaches nature has it any 
claim on our sympathy at all. The two 
opposite contentions may be taken to balance 
one another. The truth lies midway between. 


LONG PA 


Y 
< 
0) 
a 


2h + GaN eras bots nase, 





Si 
“Puoto-Timt, by James Akerman London W.C. 


Tile Panel 





Consistency in Modification of Nature. 85 


To reconcile the rival claims of nature and 
art it needs only the artist. 

But how, it may be asked, can nature be, 
in any case, a hindrance to design ? 

Whatever diverts for a moment the atten- 
tion of the artist from his artistic purpose, is 
distinctly a hindrance. The purpose of the 
ornamentist is ornament. Nature has a way 
of claiming too much attention to herself; 
and the artist, in his frailty, is only too likely 
to yield to the seductions of a mistress, 
worthier, it may be, than all others, but not 
the one he has, so to speak, sworn to love 
and cherish, if not to obey. 

The designer can hardly make too many 
studies from nature, but he can easily make 
bad use of those he has made, and easily 
encumber himself with them. A man can 
design quite freely only when the burden of 
natural fact is so familiar that to him it 
ceases to be a burden. Refreshing as it may 
be to refer to his studies, or to Nature herself, 
he cannot design with either in front of him. 
The actual thing is not malleable enough 
for his purpose, whereas an impression or a 
memory of it accommodates itself in the 
most surprising manner to the conditions of 
the case, and the necessary modification 
occurs as though it were a matter of course. 


86 Nature in Ornament. 


In our happiest moments that is so. At 
other times the question as to the necessary 
modification has to be deliberately decided. 

It is not possible to lay down any limit 
as to the degree of naturalism permissible in 
ornament, or to say that the most natural 
rendering may not sometimes be the best. 
The conditions of the case may determine 
the elimination of the natural element in 
design altogether, or permit it to rule para- 
mount: they determine the degree of modifi- 
cation necessary, or the degree of naturalness 
allowable. 

And even where they leave the artist free, 
as soon as ever he begins to design he sets 
himself his own limits. He pledges himself 
by what he has done, and is bound in con- 
sistency to carry his idea logically through. 
A formal arrangement of lines involves an 
equally formal kind of foliation, and free 
growth pledges him to equally natural foliage. 
So also natural detail prescribes free lines 
of growth, and conventional detail implies 
lines proportionately conventional. 

If, that is to say, it is proposed to clothe a 
geometric skeleton with foliage, it is quite 
easy to make the turn of the leaves too 
natural; the danger in the case of a more 
natural skeleton would be in making them 





“PHoto Tint, by James Akerman London WC 


Chrysanthemum Pattern. 





Consistency in Modification of Nature. 87 


too hard and formal. On Plate 39 the sym- 
metric lines on which the design is set out 
logically determined a certain restraint in the 
rendering of the lily, and it is reduced accord- 
ingly to what might be called mere ornament. 

On the other hand, the free growth of the 
chrysanthemum, on Plate 40, not only per- 
mitted, but demanded detail more in accord- 
ance with nature. It was possible, therefore, 
to proceed altogether on the lines of nature, 
only modifying natural form in the direction 
of symmetry and ornament. 

One of the most irritating things in design 
is to see flowers like catherine-wheels, or 
other such prim rosettes, on stems suggesting 
growth, or to find naturalistic flowers spring- 
ing from quite arbitrary and mechanical lines. 

In the otherwise masterly design on Plate 
23, by the late B. J. Talbert (an artist who 
deserved better than to be so soon forgotten), 
there is just that flaw, that the eyes of the 
sunflowers, in comparison with the freer 
growth of the leaves and petals, are so 
formal as to stare out of the pattern at you. 
This effect is to a great extent obviated in 
the wall-paper by judiciously soft colouring, 
but the fault in design is still there. 

This point of consistency needs the more 
to be insisted upon, because it has at no 


88 Nature in Ornament. 





65. Indian corn, adapted to ornament. 


time been strictly enough observed. Every- 
where, in Greek no less than in Gothic art, 
we find the artist (weak creatures that we 
are) lapsing into inconsistency. The border, 
in particular isa pitiall im hisspaties toed 
arbitrary arrangement is, one may say, a 
necessity ; and it is only with difficulty, often, 
that he brings himself to reduce leaves and 
flowers to consistency with the waves or 
spirals or other symmetrical lines on which 
they grow. 

In the border at the top of the pagemrie 
adaptation of the Indian corn to its place is 
perfect: that is ornament, ~@©n Ee late-siethene 
are sundry instances of much less successful 
treatment, where the ivy-leaf is natural enough 
in shape to make us want it to grow more 
naturally; which is the case also in the 
borders on Plate 83. On Plate 41 the leaves 
and their arrangement are equally remote 
from nature, and the result is correspondingly 
satisfactory. The happy mean of conven- 
tionality is found also in the borders on 


Pp. 55, 57, 58, 61, &c. 


The arrangement of wave or other scroll 


Plate 4 





CF Kell PhotoLithe,O Furnival %.Holbors,E.C 


Arch aic foliage. 





Consistency in Modification of Nature. 89 


with leaves alternately on either side of it 
(or leaves and 
flowers, or leaves 


——————————— 


ine 





4 
6 


EC. COO” 
IS ra 
Gets 
NTRS 
Rie 


a 
or 


and berries) is 
Plates 24, 2 ANY: LON \OMAaA 
( 4) 5, A X) N A CIS) AS le isi} 
41, 68, 81) just A) Or ; WA Hef 7 
WON, 
EA SKOAN) Ag 
CaN ay 1 p 
to the natural-  |geyS Aa SN 
. . ~ vey ¢ % NS 7 SY N 
istic rendering POY ONY 
berry, or what- 
ever it may be. 


objectionable ee 
Ue 4 Uy 
Vy 
Aa \ ss/ rf, f fi 
. \ (Od) 4 
NW Sit , UK te 
in proportion KY WM! 3 
a? LAN Ag 
NEA ANA A 
: A\ ANE Ae , 
5 WK 
of leaf, flower, 
There are two 


ic fel ta 

NATIT TRT Tt pra 
. NONE GEL, 
eit 


en 


Baan 
aa 


separate _ start- i 
ing-points in 
ornamental de- 
sign. Natural 


form, once mo- 
dified, may re- 
solve itself into 
Ornament pure 
and simple; and, 
om °the other 
hand, ornament 
has always a 
tendency to as- 
sume familiar 


bats) eal a7 C3 aa 
QUeSco Ga) SA wn 
Q ae} Oe < 

x la am a 

c SOT Sou’ 

G hors oO“ 

ww ior 
Sarat. yp 
4 a 


C 
i> 
a 
aa 
ao 
rok 


4 
& 
0 





66. Rigid lines of growth turned to 
natural shapes. ornamental account. 


9O Nature in Ornament. 


But, though somewhat similar results may be 
arrived at from such different directions, nature 
modified by considerations of ornamental pro- 
priety is one thing, ornament modified by 
memories of nature is quite another. 

If you start with nature, the difficulty is 
in making natural forms subserve decoration 
without eliminating 
(OO Cauley wne 
natural element. 

When the lines of 
erowth peculiar to a 
plant are not in the 
direction of orna- 
ment, what is to be 
done ? 

ine loetier jolla 
1S. MO, ii SOU Camm 
help it, to go against 
nature, but to jper- 
suade, if possible, the 67. Artificial grace of line. 
natural and charac- 
teristic growth into lines more in accordance 
with the purpose of ornament. Even the 
Greeks, as I have said, when they resorted 
to arbitrary lines in connection with natural 
forms, did not succeed. 

It must not too readily be taken for 
granted that a certain rigidity of growth may 





by ys 
i tat 0 \ NW yt 
7 ATS 
AN \ i N x . 
: : @ \ AY rie x \ TERS 
AN \ \ YY 
A 


“ : — 
<a , 
ia ree 
Bisa i} i NS sg 


\ ne, 


Zs 
y Ava. Ay vin ‘a 
: spon 





C.F KELL, PHOTO-LITHO.8.FURNIVAL S? HOLBORN,E.C 


Modern Gothic Lily panel. 





Consistency in Modification of Nature. 9\ 


not possibly be turned to account in orna- 
ment. There is evidence of the availability 





68. Quasi-natural rendering of lily. 


92 Nature in Ornament. 


of rigid lines of 
growth in the in- 
genious composi- 
moa GC Woe” leis 
Clement Heaton 
on p. 89, com- 
pared with which 
the "admittedly, 
more craceful 
Italian version of 
the bearded wheat 
On Pp: 90) 1s Mot 
without a sug- 
gestion of  sick- 
liness.) What is 
fanciful in this 
last design makes 
for ornament, no 
doubt ; but there 
is something al- 
most discordant 
in the association 
of lines so sweet 
with the growth 
of corn. 
Sanmicheli’s 

quasi-natural lily 
(p. 91), with its 
five impossible 


22S REFN He nn nine nA VRE ESET EEN TAAMIA IAAL ATTEE TOTES PRS OO AIREY SEPM ON PHELAN NARERIRAD REO SORT HORN RN var omar 


69. Quattro-cento lily. 


z 
2 
3 











Consistency in Modification of Nature. 93 


petals, has not half the character of Talbert’s 
manlier lilyon Plate 42. Theearlier Quattro- 
cento example on p. 92 is equally guilty 
of five petals; although in the very rigidity 
and dignified simplicity of the composition 
there is some- 
thing that re- 
calls the natu- 
ral flower. 

One may ad- 
mit, however, a 
certain charac- 
ter and beauty 
m.* the - stiff 
srowth of the 
lily, and even 
allow that it 
may be made 
use of in de- 
sign, without 
denying for a 
moment that it 
is ‘stiff. - The 


ornamentist 70. Narcissus compelled into the way of 
ornament. 





may quite fairly 

seek lines more graceful. Still, unless he 
looks upon the lily merely as a motif of 
ornament (as shown on Plate 39) he is 
hardly at liberty to make it branch like a 


94 Nature tn Ornament. 


EZ, Zs Ufo), 
Dy ys 


Mipy 


FL cone Oe 





71 Incorgruous trea'ment of the oak. 


bush or twine like a creeper; nor need he 
wish it. It is quite possible, to one suf- 
ficiently at home in nature and in design, to 
indue any such refractory plant with a grace 
of line anda general suavity of form which, 
though by no means characteristic of the 
natural growth, do not, at all events, bluntly 
contradict it. 

The graceful character of the growth on 
Plate 43 is not precisely that of the lily ; but 
one is hardly disposed to quarrel with a com- 
position in itself so satisfactory. The detail 
is not so natural that you miss the natural 
srowth. As a rendering of the lilamcae 
design may not be all that one could wish ; 
as ornament there is not much fault to find 
with it: the deviation from nature is all in 
the direction of design. It is evident, too, 









By Crom 


old Sills 


Hiss- m7 e+ guint 


SPR R a Cc eg STAR IG OR LETT RIT III TS 


TO RL SN NS AER eee IEE SNS ADE OE DE SER if AS: 
“Puoto-Tint, by J. Akerman,6,Queen Square W.C. 


18" Century flower rendering. 





Consistency in Modification of Nature.95 


that the artist looked at the lily for himself, 
and conventionalised it according to his 
needs. It almost seems as though the plant 
might have been trained to grow so. 

This is the natural evolution of ornament, 
and not the mere distortion of nature which 
is sometimes mistaken for ornamental treat- 
ment. In the panel on p. 93 it has been at- 
tempted to subject the narcissus to somewhat 
similar ornamental treatment. 

In the eighteenth century version of the 
wild flag on Plate 44 there is a certain ap- 
pearance of naturalness, or, more properly 
speaking, of picturesqueness; but it grows 
with a grace and elegance absolutely arti- 
ficial. That same affectation belonged indeed 
borthe period (see Plates 32, 33,62, 70); but 
it is at least a graceful 
affectation, and con- 
sistent with itself. 

That can hardly be 
said for the rendering 
of the oak on p. 94, 
which has the unfor- 
tunate appearance of 
being either too natu- 
ral or not natural 
enough. And_ even 
72. Characterless design. were the lines more 





96 Nature in Ornament. 





73- Inconsistency between flower and leaf. 


satisfactory than they are, one would still 
feel that there was something incongruous 
in the combination of lines so suave and 
slender with the oak. And so again in the 
case of the still more timid treatment of 
the leaves by Albertolli on p.95. This par- 
ticular tree is, more than all others, associated 
always in our minds with the idea of sturdy 
ancularity. 

The rendering of a plant may be by no 
means very natural, and yet by far too much 
so. In the ornament above, the flower is too 
distinctly an orchid to go with foliage dis- 
tinctly belonging to another family. This is 
a fault rather exceptional in Japanese design, 
where the rendering of nature is usually either 
frankly natural or deliberately and uncompro- 
misingly conventional. 

In the art of the Renaissance the fault of 
inconsistency is of the commonest occur- 


‘A2|02\a/ Zduessleu2yy Vy 


JM exenbs uren)'g'ueas aye £4 (ANIL LON | 





SSC, 


= 
rg " 


a 





Consistency in Modification of Nature. 97 


rence : the nuts, the pods, and the five-petalled 
| flowers on Plate 
45,. are’ Not espe- 
cially life-like ; but 
that forms so im- 
mediately recog- 
nisable as nuts 
and pea - pods 
should grow from 
the same stalk as 
a flower of five 
petals, to say no- 
thing of their con- 
junction with ab- 
solutely artificial 
lines, and with 
foliage of the usual 
Renaissance type, 
is enough very con- 
siderably to dis- 
count the charm 
of an exceptionally 
graceful and well- 
balanced composi- 
Liens - "Ak. + rakhier 
more coherent, and 
in some ways ad- 
mirable, version of 
the pea-pod is given on Plate 46. 





in & 
aan ot uae 


..74 Graceful artificiality 


] 


H 


98 Nature in Ornament. 


In the example on p. 97 the offence of 
ncoherence is somewhat mitigated, inasmuch 
as the detail is not very real.» All sortsvon 
different flowers grow from a single stem 
indeed, but the stem is not very obvious. 
There is a kind of natural confusion in the 
foliage, and the types are not strongly pro- 
nounced. Everything is uniformly graceful 





75. De-naturalised floral details. 


and artificial, and the unreality of the detail 
prepares one for the violation of natural 
srowth. Even then it is hard to forgive it. 
Much the same criticism might be passed 
on the Jess @raceful panel ain) the centnemon 
Plate 47. The manner in which flowers of 
various kinds grow from a common stem is 


te 46. 


a 


c 





i 


” 


Puoto-Tint, by« ames Akerman London W 


Pea-pod 





Consistency in Modification of Nature. 99 


of the eighteenth century, not of nature. In 
the panel at the top of the plate there is less 
shock to us, inasmuch as the details are more 
distinctly ornamental: the danger in design 
of this kind is in proportion as the details 
assert their natural identity. Better de- 
naturalise them altogether, as in the orna- 
ment on p. 98, than jumble up all manner of 
detail into a quite heterogeneous whole. 

It is easily understood why eighteenth 
century designers mixed their types so reck- 
lessly. They aimed at effect, at any price; 
and consistency was, in their eyes, a very 
small price to pay for it. By making lilies 
and roses and daisies and pomegranates all 
branch from one stem, it was easy to get 
variety and contrast. The more consistent 
way would have been, of course, to intertwine 
one stem with another, and so account 
logically for the variety in detail. 

It would be comparatively easy for us to 
get the qualities of eighteenth century orna- 
ment, if we were willing to pay the same 
price for it. Art and puritanism have not 
much in common, but even the artist may 
well be puritan enough to sacrifice some- 
thing of effect for the sake, I will not say ot 
honesty, but of consistency. He is quite 
free to efface, if he like, the natural type; 

H 2 


Ioo Nature in Ornament. 


but, once it asserts itself, it binds him to a 
certain adherence to natural growth and de- 
tail. He is not justified in pocketing his 
conscience. His details may bear, -if it so 
please him, but the vaguest resemblance to 
leaves and flowers and fruits; but if they are 
recognisable as such, they must grow as 
such: a stem, for example, has no business to 
grow two ways at once. . 

Moreover, the artist will instinctively select — 
his types: he will not associate compound 
leaves with lily flowers, or simple leaves with 
pea blossoms. If the growth of his ornament 
suggest a forest tree he will not fill-up with 
tendrils. If the fruit suggest an acorn he will 
not decorate the stalk with thorns. Where 
the flowers occur singly he will not make 
berries in clusters; or if the flowers form a 
spike he will not make the fruits droop. He 
will not make apple blossoms develop into 
acacia pods or daisies into gooseberries. 

According to his acquaintance with nature, 
and to his artistic sense of fitness, he will 
abstain instinctively from incongruity, and 
conform at least so far to the law of order, 
that there shall be in his design no suggestion 
of conglomeration; it shall be one growth, 
reminding you of nature or not, but in any 
case consistent with itself. 

If several flowers are used in combination 


f ie . 
“Aili WANUAN\ YS 


SS 


ee en — 


— 


eS 


a Fe yA 
Wes 
nea Sa 





C.F KELL, PHOTO-LITHO. S.FURNIVAL ST HOLBOAN,E.c 


Dutch & German Conventions of the 17” Century. 





Consistency in Modification of Nature. 101 





76. Confusion of effect without confusion of growth. 


each should have its identity. The orna- 
mentist chooses naturally, where he can, the 
types in nature most amenable to ornament. 
But, apart from the fact that many of the 
most accommodating have been long since, 
as one may say, appropriated, there are cases 
in which he is bound to use such or such a 
plant, which may possibly be very awkward 
to deal with in the way of ornament; and 
one very obvious and convenient way out of 
the difficulty is, to associate with it some 
other plant or plants complementary to it, by 
help of which the qualities lacking in the 
original plant are supplied. 

Yet there is no necessity that the various 
flowers, fruits, and what not, should all grow 
from one stem. In the side borders on Plate 
47, mere disjointed sprays of flowers are 
fitted together, without producing any very 
unpleasant effect of disjointedness, which of 
two evils would certainly be the lesser. 

In the detail of Damascus tilework above, 


102 Nature in Ornament. 


the separate flowers have separate stalks. 
It may not be easy always to get rid of so 
many stalks in the composition, but in the 
intertwining of them there arise fresh pos- 
sibilities in design—if you are man se 
to seize the opportunity. 

Another way out of the dificuley of com- 
bining various floral forms is to introduce the 
one only as the undergrowth to the other, as 
shown on Plate 48. By this means it-is ‘pos- 
sible to contrast bold with delicate detail, 
broad masses with broken surface, without 
doing violence to natural laws. 

How far one is bound to adhere Ham to 
the lines on which a plant grows, and to the 
character of its detail, depends to some 
extent always upon the purpose of the artist ; 
only in strict fidelity to that purpose lie the 
possibilities of perfect art. 

What if even great artists have been guilty 
of all manner of inconsequence in design? 
They are so much the less to be trusted as 
safe guides in the matter of taste. One may 
find authority for any kind of ill-doing. The 
accepted precedents are not all of them sound 
by any means. Every precedent should be 
stripped of its prestige, and serutinised as 
carefully as the newest of recruits, and the 
ricketty ones dismissed from the service of 
art, relentlessly. 


Plate 48. 


LM 


a 


cA 


ER, is 
CB NE 





“Puoro-Tint, by James Akerman.London.W.C 


Scroll & Foliaée 





103 


VIL. 
PARALLEL RENDERINGS. 


THE study of ornament should proceed pare 
passu with the study of vegetable forms—not 
botany necessarily. 

The scientific study of botany is quite a 
thing apart. The ornamentist has no more 
occasion for exact scientific knowledge than 
the painter has need to know surgically about 
anatomy, no more occasion and no less. We 
want, in either case, just science enough to 
enable us to see the surface of things, and no 
more. The classification of a plant according 
to its hidden organs is as nothing to us com- 
pared with its character, its beauty, the hint 
in it of ornament. Its order and its family 
concern us only as they affect its outward 
development and growth. We need not 
greatly concern ourselves in pulling flowers to 
pieces. An artist can do with comparatively 
little science, if only he make full use of his 
eyes. 

Suppose the student in ornamental design 


104 Nature in Ornament. 


to have begun by being thoroughly well 
grounded in practical geometry; soon he 
might proceed to put together, somewhat on 
the kinder-garten system, geometric patterns, 
simpler or more complex according to the 
degree of his ingenuity. Then, as he grew 
beyond this elementary stage, he might exer- 
cise himself in drawing freer and more flow- 
ing forms—say, until he acquired facility in 
sketching off (with the brush) ornament of 
the kind the Greek pot-painters drew with 
such freedom (p. 152). 

Simultaneously with this he should be 
making intelligent studies of leaves, flowers, 
fruits, and all manner of details of plant-form 
and plant-growth. With equal diligence he 
should be studying the masterpieces of applied 
design, especially noting the way the masters 
treated those same natural forms, and always 
choosing his model, whether of plant form or 
of ornament, for the definite reason that it 
meant something to him. 

His studies should be carried just so far as 
their purpose warranted: there should be no 
attempt to make pictures of them, or show- 
drawings, or to make them even presentable. 
What the student has to do is to make notes 
serviceable to himself, sufficient in every case 
to impress upon his memory what the original 





“Puoto-Tint, by James Akerman Lendon W.C 


Ancient Coptic Embroidery. 





Parallel Renderings. 105 


conveyed to him, records of what he wanted 
to record, that is all. 

The urgent need of choosing each example 
needs the more to be insisted upon, because 
the designer cannot too early begin to culti- 
vate the selective faculty. Judgment is one- 
half the battle in decoration. 

The closer the relation between a man’s - 
studies from nature and his studies from old 
work the better. Take, for instance, any flower 
you like and study it from nature carefully 
—its form, its structure, its growth, its colour, 
its character; then see how it is rendered 
in Classic art, in Gothic, in Renaissance, in 
Japanese, in Persian, and so on. Observe 
again its treatment in sculpture, in inlay, in 
metalwork, in textile fabrics, and what not. 
A series of such exercises conscientiously and 
thoroughly done, would be an education in 
itself, and would in some degree fit one to 
conventionalise on his own account —all 
“without the aid of a master.” 

The already mentioned partiality of each 
particular period and country for a certain 
few, usually symbolic, types (p. 12), makes it 
impossible to trace any one single natural 
form through all history ; but you can trace 
most forms through a great variety of his- 
torical developments. 


106 Nature in Ornament. 
































77- The vine in Assyrian sculpture—Rk.c. 705-626. 


The type of most universal occurrence in 
ornament is probably the vine, symbol of 
philosophies as wide apart as the poles. We 
find it in the bas-reliefs of Nineveh, and the 
painted decoration of Egypt; on Etruscan 
vases, and Greek and Komamnm altars|.0m 
Byzantine sarcophagi, in Coptic embroideries, 
and in early Sicilian silks; it recurs in every 
form of Gothic art, and throughout all phases 
of the Renaissance. 

In the Assyrian treatment of the vine above 
one finds, of course, the archaic formality 
of the age of Sennacherib, but at the same 
time a certain adherence to the natural type 
which has not varied from that day to this. 
If the leaves are all spread flat against the 
wall, they are quite unmistakable in shape. 
If the branches are symmetrically displayed 


AEN FRILL DAL 


Jorma ittan VOUT ORM 











Proro-Tint, 


» James Akerman London WC 


By 


Vine & Olive Panel, 


Pe, 
Rope a 








ese 
ramet 


et 


a em 

















Parallel Renderings. 107 


there is a suggestion in that of the way fruit- 
trees are still trained in modern orchard houses. 
Again, there is a sort of natural spring in 
the lines themselves ; and in the arrangement 
of the five branches (which is not according 
to nature) one seems to see a reference to the 
veining of the vine-leaf. At all events, this 
arbitrary grouping is so characteristic of the 
Ninevite: sculptures that it can scarcely be 
accidental, and must almost certainly have 
some symbolic meaning. The irregular shape 
of the Assyrian grape bunches is a curious 
concession to nature, seeing that some of them 
stand up on end, and that the grapes are 
just square. It will be noticed that leaves 
and fruits do not occur in the order in which 
a botanist would place them, and that the 
tendrils are made use of only as a convenient 
means of ending off the branches. 

On Plate 49 is a Coptic rendering from 
a tomb in Upper Egypt, which is equally 
archaic, but infinitely more ornamental. Ob- 
serve the reticent use of grapes, their syste- 
matic arrangement, and the fact that they 
alsostand on end. The vine-leaf onthe same 
plate, veined, as it were, with a growth of 
vine, is also extremely curious. The way in 
which the tendrils ornament the stem is worth 
noticing. 


108 Nature in Ornament. 






78. Vine from a Greek vase. 


The Greek treatment above 

‘is, if not more natural, at least 
more florid. The stem indeed 
diminishes in thickness towards 
its extremity, and is clothed 
at the same time with smaller 
leaves ; but the stem itself is: a 
mere wave-line, and the leaves, though founded 
on a more graceful natural variety than 
the Assyrian, are less unmistakably vine- 
leaves, 

It is a rather curious thing in the decorative 
treatment of the vine in early art, that although 
there is no plant growing which varies more as 
to the shape of its leaves—heart-shaped, round, 
angular in outline, divided into three or five, 
the divisions deeply cut or scarcely noticeable, 
sometimes not seen at all—it is yet the rarest 
thing in the world to find in any ornamental 
version of the plant more than a single type of 
leaf. Thatis one point at least in which there 
is opportunity for a new departure in design, 
and to considerably ornamental purpose. 


ondon WC 


i 





“Proro-Tint, by Jamee Akerman 


Halian Gothic Vine. 





Parallel Renderings. 109 





79. Pompeian vine border. 


The tendrils in the Greek vase painting 
are, for the most part, more obviously twirls of 
the brush than transcripts from nature ; even 
when they are branched they take the lines of 
our old friend the spiral scroll, and are graceful 
where in nature they would be vigorous; 
there is never anything like clutch in them. 
The artist seems sometimes just to have 
realised that leaf and tendril grew from some- 
where about the same point on the stem, but 
no more. If he had any definite idea at all 
of the relation between leaf. and tendril, it 
would’ appear to have been the erroneous 
notion that the leaf grew from a point of 
junction between the tendril and the stalk. 

Perhaps the most natural thing in the 
design is the way in which it is composed, 
very much in the way of the trellis—another 
method of training that has survived without 
change from the beginning of vine culture. 
The bunches, besides, do hang down, obedient 
to the law of gravity. 

A more formal Greek rendering occurs in 
the disc on Plate 24, but in both cases the 


IIO Nature in Ornament. 





80. Italian wood-carving—hop or vine? 


grape bunches are much the same in out- 
line. : a 

In later Classic sculpture, especially in. 
Roman work, the vine-leaf is often repre- 
sented naturally, only again without the 
variety of nature, one shape doing duty 
throughout. And here also we find the ten- 
drils always deliberately made softer than in 
the living plant. They have no inclination 
to twine themselves round anything; they 
are not much more than graceful scroll lines. 
What growth there may be in them is certainly 
not studied from the particular plant. Leaves, 
tendrils, fruits, occur wherever the artist has 
occasion for them. There is a touch of nature 
in the thickening of the leaf-stalk at its base, 
but this feature also is softened down to 
eracefulness ; it is rather suggested than ex- 
pressed. The very grapes are frequently 
reduced to bunches of five or seven. 

They “are) rather fuller on Plate 5o; 9 ne 


jee. 


Pla 


‘azalt{ oat, ajddy) x» oul 





CF KELL, PHOTO-LITHO,8,FURNIVAL ST HOLBORN,E C 





Parallel Renderings. 6 





81. Conventional Gothic vine and grapes. 


disregard of natural scale in this design is as 
frank as in the Assyrian treatment. It is 
strange to find, in connection with such an 
arbitrary rendering, anything so realistic as 
the knobby bowls of the olive trunks, which 
are as cavernous as you see them in nature. 

Again, in the vine from Giotto’s Tower, at 
Florence (Plate 51), the artist, contrary to the 
usual Gothic practice, has thought fit to sup- 
port the vine, perhaps because the leafage, 
distinctly ornamental as it is, is intended to 
represent. a vineyard. It forms a sort of 
canopy over the subject of Noah’s drunken- 
ness. 

In the more natural frieze of my own, on 
Plate 52, the vine is supported by apple- 
boughs: the upright trunks of the trees, cor- 
responding in position to the beams in the 
ceiling, form a marked feature in the design. 

Among the Greco-Roman details on Plate 
53, the grapes are rather more natural than 
the leaves, which are in one case just the 
reverse of natural. The leaf cut in cameo 


112 Nature in Ornament. 





fig 82. Gothic vine, with mulberry-like grape-bunches. 


is, however, at once natural and ornamental. 
In the embossed silverwork a distinctly orna- 
mental character results from the employment 
of the stems, tendrils, and fruits only: the 
same thing occurs in later Classic sculpture. 
In the border from a Pompeian bronze in 
the museum at Naples, on p. 109, the thick- 
ening of the leaf-stalk is indicated; but the 
srowth is again absolutely arbitrary. The leaf, 
though like enough to nature, could not be 
identified with any degree of certainty, were 
it not for the accompanying grapes and ten- 
drils: but for that evidence it might just as 
well pass for maple, or cranesbill, or hibiscus 
leaf. te 
Such corroborative evidence of identity is 
often needed. Inthe process of adaptation to 
ornamental conditions the unmistakable cha- 
racter of a plant is not uncommonly eliminated. 
One is perplexed, for example, by the Italian 
wood-carving on p. 110. According to its 
tendrils it should be a vine, but its fruits are 
more like hops. In Gothic ornament one has, 
once more, frequently to take the vine-leaf on 





“Puoto-Tint, by James Akerman Londen W.C 


Clasical rendering of the Vine. 





Parallel Renderings. [12 


faith, failing grapes, and more particularly 
tendrils (p. 59 and Plate 29). 

The grapes are sometimes as remote from 
nature as the leaves, and the scale to which 
the bunches are reduced often removes them 


SAAN AOR FR aitiec 
i BAe: HN iesse rere 


a er ste Ne 


a ts Giiry 
3 \ = B Heh 2 
oy) ge 

an Lr 7 

he ay 


H i tN sain 
REN AS*, 


DLN 3 % 
a a * 
Yes: oh ha} 
: OR fort 
4 "0 


1 eels Br aati ay at aa 
Hatret teria 0 path RN it A ts 
NI 3 hh pee 4 pias 
Pa Lng ri oie TLD Ag 





83. Conventional vine, from Toledo. 


still further from recognition. It is possible 

that the mulberry is sometimes mistaken for 

the vine. Many a conventional vine leaf (as 

for example on p. I11) is much more like the 

leaf of the white mulberry of Lombardy 
I 


114 Nature in Ornament. 


than it is like a vine-leaf; whilst the compact 
little bunches of diminutive berries look 
occasionally much more like mulberries 
than any gtapes one has seen. “In tse 
border on p. 112 they might almost “be 
blackberries. It is possible also in Gothic 
WO (nko O 
confound 
them with 
the berry- 
spike of the 
wild arum. 
It is only 
our famili- 
arity with 
similar con- 
ventions 
which en- 
ables us to 
understand 
that the 
Gothico- 
M oresque 
foliage on p. 
113 stands 
for the vine. For growth the Moorish sculptor 
has simply branched a spiral line. His vine- 
leaves would answer at least as well for bry- 
ony leaves, and his berries would do as well 
for bryony berries. His reason for bunches of 





84. Moorish vine. 





Arab Vine panel 





Parallel Renderings. 115 
oe eee doubt: 1} a 


less symbolic. Bi ere a 
He has not bo- : ls 
thered himself il bef , Et 
about tendrils at hs | | fis i 1 Me) 
all. Probably he MF ABE Wee | 
was happiest over |\||\f “i : ; woe g) ( 
his diaper behind | é a 
the foliage, which ) 
[though the illus- 
tration does not 
show it] is Moor- 
ish ornament pure 
and simple. 

An equally 
arbitrary Moorish 
rendering is given 
emp: 114.” It -is 
clear the sculptor 
was more at home 
in Saracenic or- 
nament than in 
nature. 

The more reso- 
lutely ornamental 
wine, of pure 
Arab carving, on 
Pinte 54,. is, curi- 
ously enough, far 


more suggestive of br, Naive Byzantine vine. 
LE 2 


SS 





SESS 


ee 


HM 
} 
i 
Hy 
a) 
by 

, 

4 

h 


yh 
Ral 
Oat 
al en re 
Al 
a BY i 
i 2 
Bi | 
( By) RY 
WE mY 
hy Ue 
ay i 
i Hh 
un | 0 
iM hip 
) De rh B 
Wh i" 
vy Ua 
) Ae 
ih , Ye 
ty vA) 
Uy Y i 
Ost Hi AD 
Hi IH on 
wi i 
ahh HH 
Hh hb ed 
He) TH Pe 
a Ber BM 
ty i 
D Hn) a 
: Aine! If 
F v} f 
{ ue 
hb 
i 
A . | @ 
AGN HR: 
i A % 
H Be Bie 
Wh, 0 aD 
Dy y 
OH) Bll ae 
a Ais 
BHI A 
BIE, AA 
Un) h7-_ AA B 
col) | 
W) 
f 
||P 
p 
HJ) Fads 
He 
HW 
H r 
, 





116 Nature in Ornament. 


nature, whilst professedly avoiding it. The 


86. Early French Gothic. 





cezhsoneae = Ol 
the tendrils is 
a _— peculiarly 
happy feature 
in a most satis- 
factory design. 
NS 7a) epic. 
Sentation jamet 
the vine it may 
not be alto- 
gether 9 ade 
quate—it pre- 
tends to 7ime- 
thing Yo" tie 
kind—but as a 
piece of sur- 
face ornament 
suggested by 
a natural type, 
it is in its way 
about perfect. 

The Byzan- 
tine vine from 
Ravenna, on 
Pp. 115, 1S nee 
without a cer- 


tain grace, rudely as it is carved. Its growth 
is distinctly ornamental; and the way in 


aie cy, 


? 





s Akerman.London .W.C 


. 


by Jame 


Proro-TintT, 





Parallet Renderings. 


[17 


which the tendrils are used to fill the side 
spaces is a most ingenious adaptation of 
familiar Classic lines to a quite new purpose ; 
the objection to it is that it suggests the 
growth of the tendrils in two contrary direc- 









87. Square-shaped vine-leaves. 








tions. The charm of work 
like this lies to a great 
extent in its naivety. 

The triangular grouping 
of the grapes, at once 
symbolic and ornamental, 
foreshadows a treatment 
very common indeed in 
Gothic work. 

Compared to this the 
Romanesque’ vine, on 
Piate- 55, 1s fatural 
Conventional as 
the leaves may 
be in form, they 
grow from the 
stem, which has 
some of the cha- 
racter of the vine- 
stock. You see 


even just a hint of that twist in its growth 
of which Mr. Heywood Sumner has made 
such admirable use in his stencilled decoration 
on Plate 56. The way in which the lines 


118 Nature in Ornament. 


a 


Ch sese ay — 
Tee eS 
IN) i) =p DP See QO. 
= rtm oo . » é 
iM =! ay < ~S ww 
Fs Y : : 
Oy) ; ARS, : 





88. Diamond-shaped vine-leaves—Gothic. 


of the twisted stems form the necessary ties in 
his stencil-plate is most artful. 

The berries may be taken as evidence that 
the thirteenth century Gothic scroll from 
Notre Dame at Paris, on p. 116, is meant for 
the vine; and there is some likeness in the 
leaves, when one looks for it. 

We may take it also, probably, that the 
still more conventional scrollwork of the 
early Gothic period did symbolic duty for 
the vine. In the pre-Gothic circular design 
on Plate 57, one sees the five-pointed vine-leaf 
dwindling away to quite a conventional trefoil. 
It is only in the comparatively uninteresting 
middle period of Gothic art that we have 
leaves as much as possible in imitation of 
nature. 

In later Gothic we get design again. The 
Medizval sculptors deliberately designed their 
leaves, as it were, into set spaces—taking a 
square, a diamond, a circle, a vesica, and 
so on, as its general outline. The Assy- 
rians did so before them (p. 106), and the 
Italians after them, as may be seen in the 


Plate 56. 











Stencilled Vine Decoration, H.Sumner. 





Parallel Renderings. 119 














= . 
x = ZA it VAs 
a hee ie my YET 
AA a if! { 


vine border on p. 117, with the odd shell-like 
tendrils. 

This would come about in a very simple 
way. They would begin by blocking out the 
leaf mass, then they would hollow out the 
main divisions, and finally they would notch 
the edges. In roughing out the design it 
would occasionally happen that some other 
mass—square, diamond-shaped, or what not— 
came more happily ; they would accordingly 
adopt it, and the leaf needs must follow suit. 

Hence such treatment of the leaf as we find 
on pp. III, 112, 118, and above, where it is 
designed to conform to an outline of diamond 
or vesica shape, or made, together with the 
berries, to fit the spaces formed by the waved 
stem and the margins of the border. In Plate 58 
also it is plain how the leaves are designed, so 
to speak, into the corners of the panel. It is 
curious to see just such a system of composi- 
tion in the Coptic borders of centuries before 
(Plate 57). 

The Gothic sculptor sometimes went so far 
as to rough out the foliations of his scroll in 


120 Nature in Ornament. 





go. Diagram of Italian Gothic treatment. 


the form of trefoils (A, above), leaving it ap- 
parently to the inspiration of the moment to 
determine afterwards which of these should 
be finished as leaves (B), and which as grape- 
bunches (C). In a certain case at Padua he 
went much farther than that, and even turned 
over here and there a part of the leaf (D and 
E), without in any way altering its general 
outline. It came more naturally to him to 
do obvious violence to possibility than to 
modify his predetermined outline. This is 
not mentioned as a thing worthy of imitation, 
but as an instance of simple-mindedness not 
without its charm in old work. 

In Plate 59, part of the design for a Gothic 
window, I have endeavoured to follow, more 
strictly than I have ever seen it followed in 
old Gothic work, the actual growth of the 
vine, whilst at the same time very scrupu- 
lously fulfilling the conditions of stained glass. 

Much -as. there is to be? learni@trometite 
breadth and simplicity of the Gothic treat- 
ment of the vine (as of other foliage), it by no 
means solves for us the problem of treatment. 





“Pore -Tint. by Jemec Akerman Jondon WC 


Coptic Vine Ornament. 





Parallel Renderings. 121 


It is seldom that it shows much appreciation 
of the essentially characteristic vine forms. 
One wearies of the regularity of the “ ecclesi- 
astical” grape-clusters, and resents their stand- 
ing up like bunches of privet-berries. Why 
should we be content with the continual recur- 



























































































































































gt. Transitional vine scroll. 


rence of one stereotyped pattern, when nature 
is so varied and that variety is so ornamental ? 

In later Gothic ornament, and especially 
as it began to be influenced by the spirit ot 
the Renaissance, it is no uncommon thing to 
see a scroll that halts between two opinions, 


122 Nature in Ornament. 


clearly showing that the artist did not quite 
see how to reconcile the one with the other. 
In the instance of this given on p. 121, the 
rather loosely drawn leaves contrast curiously 
with the purely conventional foliation pro- 
ceeding from the same stem ; and yet, for all 
the hesitation of the artist, the general effect 
is that of direct and accomplished workman- 
ship. Here the main lines of the stem remind 
one more of fifteenth century Gothic window 
tracery than of growth. .The ornamental 
arrangement of the tendrils is ingenious, 
and so is the way the grapes form a sort of 
diaper on the background. This is a device 
not uncommon in late Gothic work, especially 
German work—that, for example, of Albrecht 
Diirer. 

Durer, to tell the truth, had but vaspoer 
invention in ornament—his facile pen is con- 
tinually running away with him ; his flourishes 
remind one too much of the writing-master of 
a more recent generation. The vine scroll on 
Plate 60 is an exceptionally good specimen 
of the great draughtsman’s ornament, but it 
misses at once the grace of nature-and the 
dignity of ornament. Only in respect to 
the variety in the size of the grapes, and the 
looseness of the bunches, does it approach 
more nearly to nature than the “earlier 





Puorto-Tint, by James Akerman London .W.C 


English Gothic Vine. 





Parallel Renderings. 123 












































92. Italian Quattro-cento vine scroll. 


work. It is, indeed, pzcturesque rather than 
decorative; and the picturesqueness seems 
almost like a foreshadowing of the then still 
distant Rococo. 

The artists of the Renaissance followed 
pretty closely in the footsteps of ancient 
precedent, and when they departed from the 
scroll and branched out into something more 
like natural growth, adopted by preference a 
form of leaf plainly recalling the vine. It was 
less a rendering of nature than an ornamental 
leaf more or less in its likeness, 

Italian, French, or German rendering was 
modified always in some degree by national 
character. In the Francois premier foliage 
(p. 38), there is always a certain severity, 
showing that the carver had not quite thrown 
off the Gothic yoke, under which Italian 
ornament (above) never passed. The German 
version was still more determinedly national 
—indeed it was always more clearly Teutonic 
than’ Renaissance—witness the ornament of 


124 Nature in Ornament. 





93. German Renaissance. 


Aldegrever on this. 
page. Before our days 
of archeological pre- 
tence, there was in all 
ornament an under- 
tone of national feel- 
Ine telling | olemulte 
country to which it 
belonged. There was 
no =need then ote 
Trade-marks Act to 
identify it as carved 
in) Mrance) On eGer 
many. 

Ate the) snicker 
trenching upon a 
subject discussed at 
lensth” in Sa jpteui- 
ous text-book (‘The 
Application of Orna- 
ment’) it is necessary 
to allude briefly to 
the influence exer- 
cised by material and 
manner of .workman- 
ship on the modifica- 
tion of natural form. 
This is really half the 
secret of convention- 


+ 





“Puoto-Tint, by James Akerman.London.W.C. 


Vine, Stained Glass. 





Parallel Renderings. 125 


alism, the other half being in the fitness of 
the form to its place and purpose. 

The sculptor has thus been a _ powerful 
factor in the development of the ornamental 
vine. 

You can see quite clearly in the Assyrian 
example (p. 106) how he blocked out his five- 
pointed shapes, scooped out the main divisions, 
and notched the serrations round the edges, 
much as the Gothic carvers did, and how he 
just chiselled two series of lines across his 
bunches to suggest the grapes. 

In the Greek vine (p. 108) the leaves are 
this time serrated by brush touches: in 
designing his tendrils the painter just played 
with the brush ; whilst in the case of the grapes, 
he first washed in the mass of his cluster in 
two shades of colour, and then, with little 
blots of white, indicated the grapes upon it. 

The Greco-Roman border (p. 109) is inlaid 
in silver on bronze, and the serrations of the 
leaves are produced by so many digs of the 
graver. The stiffness of the zigzag stem, it 
should be mentioned, is modified, in the actual 
bronze, by the fact that it is on the curved 
member of a moulding. 

The severe simplicity of the Byzantine 
design (p. 115) fits it for its intended purpose 
of a pilaster. 


126 Nature in Ornament. 


The breadth of the leaves in the example 
from Toledo (p. 113) is calculated to contrast 
well with the broken background. On a 
smooth ground it would have been desirable 





94. Vine in Gothic glass-painting. 


to mark the subdivisions of the leaves more 


emphatically. 
In the Arab leaf (Plate 54) thes necedmes 
something like veins was felt by the sculptor ; 


Plate CO. 





Albrecht Durer. 


Vine by 


4 





Parallel Renderings. $27 


and the ingeniously ornamental tracery by 
which he supplied their place is a lesson in 
design. 

In Plate 61 I have taken a hint from some 
sixteenth century damascening, and diapered 
the leaves with arabesque in the place of 
veining. The idea was to break the surface of 
the leaf whilst preserving an effect of flatness. 

Diirer’s leaves (p. 60) are pen-work, and 
had they been drawn with any other imple- 
ment they would never have been just so. 

The resolute avoidance of modelling in the 
German damask napkin (p. 121) is in order to 
show off the quality of the linen. 

In the various Gothic renderings of the leaf 
the tool is plainly to be traced. There is 
considerable difference between the convention 
of the wood-carver and that of the carver 
in stone. In the wood-carving on p. 110, the 
veining is indicated and a certain effect of 
modelling obtained by leaving the gouge 
marks—but then the gouging was done to 
that end, and with intelligence. 

The greater delicacy of the Quattro-cento 
leaves (p. 123) shows how the finer marble led 
to altogether more delicate workmanship. The 
coarser stone employed in English Gothic 
buildings made it absolutely necessary to 
mass the tendrils together if only for the sake 


128 Nature in Ornament. 


of strength. The tendrils in the fragment of 
old glass on p. 126 owe their scratchy ap- 
pearance to the circumstance that they were 
actually scratched out of the solid pigment 
with the stick end of the brush; the serra- 
tions of the leaves are as the brush made them 
—and so on. In short, conventional form 
proves to be the net result of comparing the 
supply of natural shapes with the demands 
of ornament, and choosing the line of least 
resistance between them. 


OU, 
4) 


1) 
= 


o y ; - ) ai > 

= i 4 7 % 

= , / 5 

s 2 

° 

aa a 


WBS Aivé CSF 





S 





Vine leaf pattern. 


Conventional 





129 


VIO. 
MORE PARALLELS. 


IT may be as well, lest the argument seem 
to rest upon a specially selected type, to com- 
pare, as briefly as possible, the various render- 
ings of certain other plants which occur by 
way of illustration throughout this volume, 
and which have been chosen partly with a 
view to such comparison. 

The Japanese treatment of the rose, on 
Plate 2, is only in so far decorative as the 
detail and the point of view are carefully 
chosen, and as the execution is simple and 
direct. Compare the energy of its growth 
with the sweeter lines on Plate 62. This last 
expression of the decadent Renaissance is not 
nearly so accurate as it somehow pretends to 
be. The stipules of the leaves, for example, 
are very inadequately acknowledged; and 
what at first sight looks like picturesque 
shading of the leaves, turns out to be quite 
arbitrary. Indeed, it is only as ornament that 

K 


130 Nature in Ornament. 


Hfpannn IM 


= = 
= = 
ae 
ae — 
. = 


"y 

N 
ant 
My 


lt 
a! 
\ 





95- Quasi-Persian rose—Italian velvet. 


this quasi-natural treatment has claim at all 
to our respect: as nature it has none. 

As a model of conventional treatment, the 
Tudor rose must always hold a very high 
place. What could be better in its way than 
the dignified simplicity of the Gothic rose and 
crown on Plate 63? How good the lines are, 
and how well the panel is occupied! A 
certain breadth is gained by the reduction of 
the compound leaf to the simple form, and a 
certain character is given by the exaggeration 
of the stipules, unlike as they are in form to 
the natural type. 

In the other Tudor rose from the stalls of 
Henry VII.’s chapel (Plate 64), the treat- 
ment is at once traditional and distinctly 
individual. It was something of an inspira- 
tion to twist the leaves and stalks encircling 





Plate 62. 


HS GRE 


ey 


eo ie aed rete 


Reece 


eee 


RA aT 


om 


Harcots rendering S 


eens ae 
COSTE TICE /? (ans 


é 


i 
cate about 





SSeS ae 


“Puoto-TinT, by J. Akerman,6, Queen Square .W.C. 


Artificial rendering of tbe Rose. 





> 


Puoto-Timt, by James Akerman London W 


TON4C. 


: 


Tudor. Kose | 


















1 60 C4 CF 
wooo” 2 
iOS Se 





F007 6 PL > Shee lip é, 
Ma SBS 






AY CFIP i 


ee 






Chejre 





WY Ver el er 





“Pnoto are nT, by J. Akerman,6, Queen ae W.C 


Tudor Rose, Wood Carving 


— 
i) 


, " tite S a 
m 4 4 ~ Ny _ a 
wate rd GU, a HL, el nue 
KE PRES Bi ot 
een By ae ee 
; yo r 4.2 sey 
a mit ie 





lialian version of a Persian Carpet: 





‘ ' 
ia Owl) BAy 4 ee. 





Plate 60. 







YONI HAA 


| 
\ 





en, 
mh ty 
| 


ove 


s 


A 
Paneniuse 
uf 
it 
emu 





ONE oe 
nTime ee 








Mn 








Gg 
Ee 
= 
Fy 
3 
2 
Ei 
A 
5 
2 
A 










| OH | i 
A Af : 
eo. ce aes 


C.F KELL, FHOTO-LITHO.8,FURNIVAL ST HOLBORN,E. 


Q 


Marble inlay from the Tay Mahal. 


“— 6e A oy . ; 








palate 


pene 


ora 





“Provo-Tint, by James Akermen,London.W.C. 


Indian Lotus Panel. 





“Puoto-Timt, by James Akerman London W.C 


Vetails of Stone Carving, (Buddhist) 





More Parallels. rat 


the rose into a further suggestion of the five- 
petalled flower. 

The monster roses at King’s College, 
Cambridge, are other splendid examples of 
Gothic treatment. B. J. Talbert’s modern 
rose on Plate 23 owes something, but by no 
means everything, to Gothic influence. 

The rose-buds on p. 130 are from a velvet of 
Italian manufacture, but so distinctly Persian 
in design that it may be presumed to have 
been copied almost literally 
from an Oriental original. 
The eye or jewel of light 
€olour in the centre of the 
leaf, in place of veining, is 
essentially Persian. In Plate 
65, from the same _ source, 
the rose-buds are at once 
more elegant and more typi- 
cal. Theexaggerated sepals 
in particular are ornamentally 
of extreme value. 

In the ruder Oriental 
embroidery on this page, 
the buds and _ sepals 
are again very charac- 
teristically emphasised. 
The angularity of the ~ 
stalks comes of follow- 6. Oriental rose border. 

m2 













132 Nature in Ornament. 


ing the square web of the linen on which it is 
worked. 

The Rhodian example below would 
hardly be taken for a rose, but for the un- 
mistakable bud once more: the open flower 
is more like a marigold. The broken stem is 
a convenient, and in Rho- 
dian pottery not an un- 
common, means of bend- 
ing the lines in the way 
it is desirable they should 
go. Once in a way that 
may pass, but it is not 
a device upon which it 
would be well to rely in 
design. 

Comparison has already 
been drawn (p. 93) be- 
tween the Quattro-cento 
lily on p. 92, the Cinque- 

eR diatrcce: cento lilies on p. 91 and 
Plate 43, my own lily 

ornament on Plate 39, Talbert’s Gothic lily 
panel on Plate 42 (something like, and yet 
unlike, the panel from the Taj Mahal at 
Agra, on Plate 66), and the more natural 
srowth on Plate) 75.0 hese smay animes 
be compared with the more or less lily- 
shaped flowers occurring in Greek scroll-work 





More 


[fFlate rt and 
p. 160), with the 
Greek pattern on 
p. 61, and with 
the Roman cande- 
labrum _ opposite, 
a characteristically 
clumsy way not so 
much of designing 


as of compiling 
ornament. 
In the Greek 


lilies already re- 
ferred to, and still 
more in those on 
p. 158, the relation 
to the anthemion 
is obvious, and to 
the lotus, that other 
form: of lily ‘so 
conspicuous in 
Egyptian and As- 
syrian art (Plates 
79 and 80 and pp. 
150, 151, 155, 240). 

The Hindoo ren- 
dering of the water- 
lily von. Plate: 67 is 
very much like the 


Parallels. 


g8. Roman lily forms, 





134 Nature in Ornament. 





99: Indian lotus—Buddhist. 


Egyptian, but it is sometimes looser, as on 
Plate 68. A very characteristic treatment is 
shown above. 

The Chinese rendering on Plate 88 is yet 
freer, but still essentially ornamental. 

Referring once more to the Greek shapes 
on p. 158, one may see in some of them a 
resemblance to the young growth of the lily 
as it bursts from the ground in spring. That 
is seen still more plainly in the Assyrian 
ornament on the lower part of Plate 8o. 


More Parallels, F325 


There is something most natural in that very 
stiff conventional upright growth—reminding 
one rather of the young iris shoots. 
_ The iris flower is, it has been already said, 
the origin of the fleur-de-lis. Compare the 
flamboyant fleurs-de-lis on Plate 121 with the 
earlier Gothic renderings on pp. 238 and 241, 
with the renderings on p. 160, and with the 
Romanesque ornament on p. 18. The flowers 
in the central ornament 
(p. 18) are remarkably 
like the iris. In the Re- 
naissance ornament on 
p. 240, the characteristics 
of the iris are reconciled 
somewhat to the shape 
of the fleur-de-lis. 
In the Indian damas- 
roo. Seventeenth century iris. cened pattern on Plate 
30, there is distinct re- 
semblance to the fleur-de-lis. The painted 
version above it, whilst pretending to be 
more pictorial, is altogether less characteristic 
of nature. 

In the Persian examples on p. 45, the flower 
is reduced to ornament, as it is also in the 
ingenious border of the frontispiece which 
Mr. Crane has designed for me. The figure 
of Iris in the centre is designed in a vein 


















Wy, jl 
oO 










Md 
Me Al Pex 


Ag 


4 


NNT 
si) 


JON Ty, 


ay i 
SS 
4 
= Ag 





cor. Renaissance pinks, 


Nature in Ornament. 





peculiarly the artist’s own. 
His “ Flora's Peast is a 
very feast of ingenious 
and fanciful and_ alto- 
gether delightful design 
of the same kind. 

Ornamentally as the 
flowers are treated in the 
Damascus tiles on p. IOI, 
they are still most cha- 
racteristic—as are the 
equally abstract forms in 
the Japanese embroidery 
on p. 66. These are quite 
unmistakably flags. 

The sixteenth century 
Italian embroidery, on p. 
135, is scarcely far enough 
removed from nature to be 
effectively ornamental. 

In the eighteenth cen- 
tury silk weaving (Plate 
44), there is a certain 


suavity of line which goes towards ornament 
















“\ 
QE 
= 4 ( i; i : 
p> : " i. Or lLOUS : 
MH abdccn SYreatbments 
GTC?) | of the 
4 d 


oe Li 


error 








ASAP ese 
C.F KELL, 


Ther Pini 


Coritati— 


Embroidery 


PP 
4M 
bevhan . 
emobraroery | 

















Tinatian 





PHOTO-LITHO, 8.FURNIVAL ST? HOLBORN.E.C 


Various vendsri ngs f 


the Pork 





“Proto-Tint, by James Akerman london WC 


IS” Century, Versions of the Fink 





More Parallels, tay 


but such affectedly graceful growth is not 
quite in keeping with the quasi-natural ren- 
dering of the flowers. 

Further parallels between the iris and the 
fleur-de-lis are drawn in the chapter on Tradi- 
tion, pp. 161, &c., and in that on Symbolism, 
p. 241. 

The pink or picotee occurs frequently in 
Oriental ornament, whence probably the 
Italians of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries borrowed it. In the Italo-Persian 
brocade on p. 149 the indebtedness of the 
weaver is obvious. 

Among the comparatively late Renaissance 
flowers on p. 136, interesting as showing a 
variety of modifications all more or less ac- 
cording to the scheme of the embroiderer, 
only one instance occurs in which the curled 
horns of the pistil are made use of. In some 
examples on Plate 69 the horns, more or less 
modified, are a prominent feature. The modi- 
fication of nature in the various renderings 
there given is according to the material and 
mode of work, embroidery, incised work, 
inlay, carving, and so on. 

As in the case of other plants alluded to, 
the late Renaissance renderings on Plate 7o 
are ultra-elegant and graceful. 

In the very excellent panel from the Taj 


138 Nature in Ornament. 


Mahal (Plate 66) the poppy is trained de- 
liberately in the way it should go—a delicate 
and graceful way, for all its formality ; and, 
for all its symmetry, varied. 

The damascened patterns on p. 61 are 
more distinctly Indian. In one of these, the 
occurrence of sepals, which the bud naturally 
sheds as it bursts, has already been pointed 
out; in the other the severe lines within 
which the growth is compactly grouped, result 
in distinct dignity of design. 

Ghiberti’s poppy on Plate 71 is one of the 
most satisfactory of the flower-groups border- 
ing the celebrated doors at Florence. The 
leaves are just conventional enough, and the 
seed-vessel or poppy-head tells for what it 
is, at once a characteristic and an admirably 
ornamental feature. 

In my own poppy-pattern on Plate 72, the 
brush touches are such as could most conve- 
niently be reproduced in block printing. It 
is meant for pattern first and poppy after- 
wards. 

In the border on p. 172, the growth is 
comparatively natural. The flowers are 
arranged in the order indicated by the 
necessities of composition, and the growth 
is made to accommodate itself, with as little 
violation of nature as possible, to them. 





i 
oe 


Be 


he 





PHoto-TInT, oy James Akerman London W. 


Foppies by Ghibert, Bronze 


u 





“Puoto-Tint, by James Akerman.London .W C 


foppy pattern. 


ie 


Es 
eat 
a 





More Parallels. 13g 


Wheat ears are a favourite symbol in 
Gothic work, but the rather intractable growth 
of corn seems to be against any great variety 
in its treatment. The stiffness of the design 


fe 





on p. 89, which belongs to the period of the 
Gothic revival, is likely to be more noticed 
than its ingenuity, which is all the artist’s own. 

In the Italian silk on p. 68, the wheat ear 


140 Nature in Ornament. 


is reduced to a pattern; in the carving on 
p. 90, it is the leaf-blades that are manipu- 
lated; Do adapt the rather rank erowthon 
the Indian corn to the purpose of a simple 
and satisfactory border, as on p. 88, is some- 
thing like a triumph of ornamental modifica- 
tion. 

It is mainly in Gothic art that the thistle 
has been taken as a motif ; but there is a wide 
difference between Hopfer’s scroll on Plate 16, 
and that on Plates 83 and 91, and between 
any of these and the late G. E. Street’s bold 
experiment in modern Gothic on p. 54. My 
own pattern on Plate 38 is thistle-like (it 
was in fact suggested by the artichoke, the 
king of thistles), but the natural characteristics 
of the plant are deliberately sacrificed to the 
purposes of pattern. 

In the representation of the pomegranate, 
the bursting of the fruit (as 
already mentioned on p. 74); 
has been very variously 
rendered. ‘Dhe latem@ingar 
Talbert, too (p. 139), turned 
the seeds to ornamental 
account. Mr. Morris’s fruits 
on Plate “87 “bursty mato 
rally. In the Chinese pattern 
103. Pomegranate. on Plate 73 the bursting 





RN 


(7 


a 


oo PIII 


— 
\i 


( 
y | 


» PHOTO-LITHO, 6,FURNIVAL ST HOLBORN, ClO. 


ac F. WELL 


SAR : G 
a 
as 


SAVE 


Chinese Tomedranate Batter in 


\ v K Ny A S 
KA Sey t's BOON Xins 


German 
Old Embroid ery 


Tncised 
16" Cntury. 





Pomeg ranates. 


ro pikes 


es 





More Parallels. 141 


of the fruit is indicated only by a change of 
colour: no seeds are revealed. The sixteenth 
century German treatment (same plate) is 
equally arbitrary. 




















104. Oak from the cathedral of Toledo. 


Persian influence is seen again in the Italian 
rendering on p. 149. One assumes that the 
pear-shaped fruit on p. 140 is meant for a 
pomegranate. The Gothic ornament on p. 60 


142 Nature in Ornament. 


stands also, no doubt, for 
the pomegranate ; but it is 
quite a traditional rendering, 
by a man who probably 
never saw the fruit. Com- 
pare this also with the pine 
patterns on Plate 84 and on 
Pp. 157. 

The various renderings of 
the oak, Classic on p. 94, 
Gothic on Plates 29 and 74, 
Italian on p. 247, Sicilian 
below, and other examples 





105. Assyrian Tree of 


Life. on p. 53 and on Plates 9 
and 83, have none of them 


any resemblance to 
the — characteristic 
Hispano - Moresque 
oak scroll on p. 141, 
which is akin rather 
to the vines on pp. 
113 and 114. 
Reference is made 
elsewhere (p. 246) 
to the daisies on 
Plates 122 and 123, 
and (p. 88) to the 
examples of the ivy === =— 
occurring on Plates 106. Oak—from a Sicilian silk. 





Plate 74. 


spitmeteescace spay emt aa 





by James Akermen.London W.C. 


Gothic Oak Ornament. 


» 


Proto-Tinr, 





More Parallels. 143 


24 and 81 and on 
27, The ver- 
sions of the olive 
on Plates 50 and 


81 need only just Co \ 


be alluded to. 


There is some- 


thing to be learnt 
from a comparison 
of the various con- 
ventional trees, As- 
syrian on pp. 142 
and 239 and Plate 
30; Greek on 
Plates 24 and 81, 
Roman on p. 509, 
Indian on Plate 77, 
Coptic on Plates 
49 and 57, Sicilian 
and Italian on 
Piste. £20 . aiid 
p. 58, Romanesque 
opposite, 

It is wonderful 
with what unani- 
mity ornamentists 
have everywhere, 
and from the be- 





107. Romanesque Tree of Life. 


ginning of time, resolved the growth of the 


144 Nature in Ornament. 


tree into its elements and made it into orna- 
ment, reducing its outline in many cases to 
the shape of a single leaf, and its branches 
to something like smaller leaves. Those to 
whom such rendering of natural form does 
not come easily, by instinct as it were, were 
not bern fog ornamentists let) thems 
their attention to work for which nature has 
fitted them. 

Comparison may further be made between 
the works of modern men (Plates 1, 22, 23, 
42, 56, 86, 87, and 08, and pps 30, 54) O4%.c0; 
130, 180, 185, and 226); and; lasth1eferemee 
to my own design (Plates 9, 14, 31, 38, 39, 40, 
AS, 52, 50; Oly 725 755205, 093,00; LOZ tO Onsigiap 
112, and 123; and pp. 93) 172, 17371 /4e2zer 
and 245) will help to explain more clearly 
than words, not what I think necessarily good, 
but the degree of naturalism on the one hand, 
and of convention on the other, which seem 
to me personally permissible in ornament. 

To any one in the least susceptllem re 
natural beauty, it is not difficult to under- 
stand the resentment which some persons 
feel towards any interference with nature. 
To disturb it is to deform it, no doubt; but 
in the interest of cultivation it has to be done. 
Brier, and bracken, and yellow gorse must 
give place to rose gardens, apple orchards, 


Plate />. 





Comparatively natural Lily Panel. 





More Parallels. 145 


and fields of corn. They too are beautiful ; 
not the less so that they owe something to 
the hand of man. It is, after all, a false and 
rather a cowardly sentiment which makes us 
afraid of disturbing what is beautiful, when 
the end is a beauty better worth having. 

Those who profess to follow nature seem 
sometimes rather to be dragging her in the 
dust. There is a wider view of nature, which 
includes human nature and that selective and 
idealising instinct which is natural to man. 
It is a long way from being yet proved that 
the naturalistic designer is more “true to 
nature” than another. Itis one thing to study 
nature, and another to pretend that studies 
are works of art. In no branch of design 
has it ever been held by the masters (least of 
all could it be held by the masters of orna- 
iment) that nature was enough. It is only the 
very callow student who opens his mouth to 
swallow all nature whole; the older bird 
knows better. “Lor, how natural!” bursts 
out the admiring rustic: the artist in like case 
thinks to himself “ What perfect art!” 


146 Nature in Ornament. 


ae 
TRADITION IN DESIGN. 


THERE have been times, perhaps, when art 
ran too much in the ruts of tradition: there 
is no danger of that just now—inore likeli- 
hood of our wandering so far from any beaten 
track as to lose our bearings altogether. 

Whatever the danger of merely traditional 
treatment in design.(a danger less imminent 
than once it was), it is time we bethought 
ourselves that traditions are not inherently 
pernicious. They represent, when all is said, 
the sum of past experience. Past masters of 
their crafts must be presumed to have known 
something. The course oof art raneabeal 
events, more evenly along the broad smooth 
ruts aforesaid. 

Whatever the traditions of his art, and 
whether he mean to follow them or not, the 
student must acquaint himself with them. It 
is not until he is acquainted with the traditional 
ways of doing a thing that he is in a position 
to form an opinion as to the relative merits 





C 


= 

8 

~~ 

8 

—d 

fl : 

4 1) 

i st) 

: oO 

3 Cc 

q° Lex 

ee 1 

2 | 

6 : 

a 
© 
= 
Se 
oO 
OQ 
ww. 
=) 


bid & Fung 


C 


a. 


1 


0 





Tradition in Design. 147 


of the divers ways of doing it: to presume to 
rely upon his unaided insight is sheer self- 
satisfied conceit—worse than the pedantry of 
the typical purist (mock-medizvalist, or what- 
ever he may be) who is always so terribly 
afraid of doing anything for which there is no 
precedent in old work, that he is invariably 
and inevitably dull. 

Whether for his guidance or his warning, 
then, the student needs to know the various 
ways in which natural forms have so far been 
manipulated by the ornamentist. There is 
the graceful Greek manner and the energetic 
Japanese, the rigid Gothic way and the much 
more strict Egyptian, the fanciful Chinese and 
the suave Persian, and again the manners of 
the Renaissance from the fifteenth century to 
the eighteenth. 

The most naturalistic type is afforded by 
the Japanese. They start quite frankly from 
nature, and indeed seem to copy natural forms 
as nearly as their tools and the conditions 
under which they are working allow ; but they 
seldom lose sight of the fact that they are 
decorating something ; and so careful are they 
of the conditions of design (as they understand 
it) that one is frequently at a loss to determine 
which is uppermost in their minds—nature 
or ornament, 

L 2 


148 Nature in Ornament. 


It is not meant to suggest for a moment 
that Japanese ornament is in every way per- 
fect: it lacks qualities indispensable to any 
really dignified and noble style of design ; 
but in the mere treatment of natural form 
as naturally as possible and yet ornament- 
ally, there is probably more to be learnt from 
Japan than from any other source. 

Although the traditions of the Japanese 
are inherited directly from the Chimesete 
work of the younger race is characterised by 
a vigour and spontaneity of design, with which 
we are not accustomed to credit the elder. 
But the floral element of design is character- 
istic of Mongolian art from the first, so much 
so that its prevalence in Persian and Indian 
art betrays, one may say, the Mongolian 
conqueror. 

If at its best Chinese ornament is less 
characteristically natural than Japanese, it is 
more characteristically ornamental. Whatever 
modification there may be of natural form is 
all in the direction of design. Orchis, fungus, 
and butterfly (Plate 76), each is designed into 
its place, and is, moreover, made to conform 
to the necessity of ornament. Musicians 
have no very high opinion of what they call 
“tuney ” music. Perhaps Chinese ornament 
may be “tuney,” but at least it is in tune. 


i 


1 VI 
Vigte / / 





Conventional Tree work 





Tradition in Design. 149 


That is even more true of the kindred art 
of India (Plate 77). There also everything 
is doubtless inspired by nature, but every- 
thing is compelled into ornament. The very 
luxuriance of the design is suggestive of 
tropical vegetation, but the ornament never 
runs wild. The date-palm is there with its 






































108. Renaissance silk showing Persian influence. 


scarred trunk, but the scars are made intoa 
pattern. Sowith the branched stem contrast- 
ing with it, it branches into distinctly orna- 
mental lines, and breaks out into equally 
ornamental foliation. 

The man who carved the lattice of which 
a portion is given on Plate 77 loved nature, no 
doubt, but he was an ornamentist to the tips 


150 Nature in Ornament. 


of his fingers ; and the superiority of Oriental 
art in respect to rhythm, harmony, sweetness, 
is the immediate result of working on the 
lines of tradition, of devoting trained faculties 
to the perfection of an accepted method, of 
refining upon refinement until the acme of 
easy grace is reached. 

The Persian rendering of natural forms is 
more free: there is more of the variety of 
nature in it; but its starting point is always 
nature, whatever liberties the artist may take 
with it: it must be confessed he does not 
stand upon ceremony. One favourite freak 
of his (Plate 78) was to break the surface of 
a leaf by diapering it over with other foliated 
or floral detail. He was enabled thus to 
introduce amidst the smaller forms bolder 
shapes, contrasting most usefully with them, 
and yet not forming unbroken patches in the 
design. 

The artists of the 
Renaissance _ bor- 
rowed this idea and 
made _ considerable 
use of it. The way 
in which the big 
pomegranate shape 
on the piece of six- 
teenth century silk, — 1c9. Egyptian symbolic papyrus. 








Persian foliage. 





Tradition in Design. 151 






J 






Mt 


























tro. Assyrian symbolic ornament. 


shown on p. 149, is enlivened by the introduc- 
tion of smaller floral details, betrays distinctly 
the influence of stuffs imported from Persia 
(compare it with the velvet on p. 73); the 
design is Renaissance, but with a difference. 

A similar influence is apparent in the 
damask design on Plate 34; indeed, there 
was a period when European silk designers 
worked habitually on those lines. 

Tracing tradition back to its beginnings, we 
find that the art of ancient Egypt was con- 
fined within very narrow lines; but within 
those lines it fulfilled admirably what it pur- 
posed to do. It is worth study, if only to see 
how the symbolism which was at the root of 
it was made to subserve to ornament, how 
orderly arrangement and restraint in treat- 
ment went far towards decoration, and how 
the most severe simplicity resulted in in- 
variable dignity (p. 150 and Plate 79). 

Much the same may be said of Assyrian 
design. It does not afford, it need scarcely be 
said, any more than Egyptian, a fit model for 


152 Nature in Ornament. 


nineteenth century ornament; and the re- 
straint which we observe in either (p. 151 and 
Plate 80) was, perhaps, if we inquire into it, 
not so much a matter of restraint as of neces- 
sity ; but none the less it shows us what may 
be done by self-control ; and, working as we 
do under conditions which make it almost 
necessary for us to assert ourselves, it is. as 
well) that 

we should 
be remind- 
ed from 
time to & 
time that, 
if the world 
went on 
the whole 
no better 
tlie peeeeattt xis 
earcite it 111. Abstract Greek ornament. 





permitted a naive and simple-hearted kind of 
art, from which the most advanced of us have 
much to learn. 

Greek ornament is in the first instance 
quite abstract in character (above), consisting 
of curling lines and touches of the brush ; but, 
such abstract forms assuming by chance (or, 
as I should say, of necessity) some resem- 
blance to floral forms, it occurred to the artist 


Piste 79. 





Proro-Tint, by James Akerman,London.W.C. 


Details of Gdyptian 


culpture. 


ce 





Tradition in Design. 153 








112. Later Greek ornament. 


to develop the naturalistic idea—much, as it 
proved, at the expense of beauty and design. 
This is plainly to be seen in the ornament of 
the later period (above), in which the spirals 
in perspective and the scrolls which look like 
wood-shavings, mark a very distinct step 
downwards in design. 

When it came to the rendering of the 
natural shapes of leaves, berries, and so on, 
the Greek continued to arrange such details 
arbitrarily, with a view to composition and 
without regard to natural growth. There is 
no objection to that so long as the leaves are 
not so natural as to call for something like 
natural connection; but in Greek ornament 
the growth was not always consistent with 
the detail. 

In the lower border of ivy on Plate 81, 
leaves, berries, and growth are alike conven- 


154 Nature in Ornament. 


tional ; in the upper border the three-pointed 
leaves are more natural than the berries, and 
the stalks are too natural for the arbitrary 
order in which these are arranged. 

Again, in the borders of olive, there is a 
sort of naturalism about the fruits inconsis- 
tent with their arrangement two and two 
along the stem. Moreover, the flower intro- 
duced into the lower example is a quite incon- 
gruous feature. 

The altogether abstract rendering of ne 
bay at the bottom of the plate—so abstract 
that one cannot be quite certain it is meant 
for the bay—is more absolutely satisfactory. 
The earlier Greek traditions were the best. 

Eventually, in Classic sculpture, bay, olive, 
ivy, and other plants were rendered almost 
naturally. 

In the fragment of Roman carving on 
Plate 82 we have quite a different kind of 
thing: natural growth, that is to say, is 
twisted into ornamental lines, the tree is 
made to grow as the ornamentist would have 
it. There is a certain decorative treatment in 
that (as there was almost invariably in ancient 
art), but it is not ornament, and it is orna- 
mental only to the extent that all sculpture 
was, until in recent times it broke loose alto- 
gether from tradition. 


Plate 80 








ae ae A 


f fe ins LT 


fl a AS 2 
| ne Ta A 
fl t oo Mae I i 
IERIE SENN ve 1 


me 


ae 





et 


ge ee 
C F KELL. PHOTO-LITHO.6.FURNIVAL ST HOLBORN.E.C 


Details of Ninevite Sculpture. 





Tradition in Design. 155 


That idea of making natural things grow 
unnaturally is continually cropping up in 
ornament. It is illustrated again in Plate 83. 
There is no mistaking Master Peter Quentel’s 
types. The nightshade, the columbine, the 
pea, the oak, the thistle, are natural enough— 
too natural almost for the impossible lines on 
which they grow: the oak branches, for 
example, are shown to 
have each two separate 
starting-points. 

However much we 
may prefer the vigour 
of the Gothic work- 
man to the somewhat 
effeminate grace of the 
Oriental, in’ that one 
respect Eastern art is 
more consistent by far: detail and its dis- 
tribution go together, and are one growth, 
however artificial it may be. The difficulty 
in adapting comparatively natural forms to 
artificial growth is very great ; only a master 
ever quite gets over it. 

I have already explained (p. 33) the de- 
velopment of the Classic scroll. The tradi- 
tion was taken up again by the Italians of 
the Renaissance. The arabesques of the 
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are Classic 





113. Assyrian rosette. 


156 Nature in Ornament. 


with a difference ; and down to the period of 
the French Revolution, if not indeed of the 
Exhibition of 1851, through all the changes 
which it underwent, we can trace in the scroll 
the development, or it may be the degrada- 
tion, of Classic tradition. 

Hxamples! in) point eceur in) lates see 
99, 105; and. 
whether the 
deviation 
from the ori- 
ginal idea 
bewin= the 
direction 
of nature 
(Elabes! 17, 
45, and 46), 
OF ©) loss 
tract orna- 
ment (Pls. |. : 
[9 r1o-and 114. Gothic ornament trom Notre Dame, 

; : Paris. 

117), = the 

descent of the design is always easily to be 
traced. For better or for worse, one style 
grew, that is to say, out of the other. As 
certainly as the Assyrian rosette on p. 155 
was influenced by Egyptian tradition, so 
certainly did the tradition of such work 
influence the Greeks. 





Plate 81. 





J Akerman, Photo hth London 


Vetails of Greek Vase painting. 





Tradition in Design. Lo 


And so it was with Gothic art. We can 
trace it through its various phases back to the 
Romanesque, and so find a connection with 
the Classic. Indeed, in some details of early 





115. Fifteenth century fir-cone or pine-apple ornaments. 


Gothic ornament one can trace a distinct 
resemblance to Greek art, from which in 
important particulars it is most remote. 

In the detail from Notre Dame at Paris, 
on p. 156, there is a distinct relationship to 
the painted ornament on Greek vases, and the 
typical “Early English” detail assumes at 
times in the hands of the glass painter some- 
thing of the same character. 

Not only may one historic 
style of ornament be traced 
from another, but the very 
details of ornament are in 
many instances traditional, 
and survive long after they 
have lost any significance 
they may originally have had ; 
so much so, that what is 





116. Chinese flower 


strange and unaccountable forms, 


158 Nature in Ornament. 





117. Etruscan. Greek. Greek. Greek. 


in ornamental design, proves often to be only 
the survival of some long lost tradition. 

The fir-cone, or, as the French call it, the 
pine-apple, which figures in nearly all fifteenth 
century pattern-work (see Plate 84 and p. 157), 
figures not only on the thyrsus of the Greek 
god, but in Assyrian ornament (p. 151), and 
in still earlier Egyptian sculpture (Plate 79). 
On Plate 80 the Assyrian fir-trees are regu- 
larly cone-shaped. 

It is possible, no doubt, to work oneself 
into a state of mind in which it seems 
plausible enough, if not quite proven, that all 
ornament is derived from a single source, the 
“hom” or date-palm, to wit. But without 
going quite so far as Sir George Birdwood in 
his ingenious theory as to the development of 
the knop-and-flower pattern, one cannot but 
admit that the unanimity with which, from 
the days of the Pharaohs to the days of Eliza- 
beth, ornamentists have put together similar 
forms on similar lines, leaves no possible 





Puoto-Tint, by James Akerman, London.W.C. 


Koman Sculpture, 








Tradition in Design. 159 





118. Japanese diaper. 


doubt as to the lingering influence of tradition 
upon design through all that time. 

It is especially curious, also, to notice how 
on very similar lines very different and yet 
clearly related forms are developed. 

Whatever may have been the origin of the 
characteristic form popularly known as the 
honeysuckle ornament of the Greeks,* there 
is no mistaking 
its relation to 
the Egyptian lotus 
and papyrus or- 
naments, pp. 150 
and 240, and to 
the Assyrian palm 
ornament, p. I5I. 
See also Plate IIo. 

in,  ‘Uhinese 
flower forms, also 
(p.157), one seems 
to see very much 
the same lines ; 119. Japanese diaper. 


al 


I 


uN 


= 





* ‘Some Principles of Every-day Art,’ pp. 104-107. 


160 Nature in Ornament. 











120. Lily-like Greek details. 


and in the Indian naya, or many-headed snake, 
the resemblance is so striking as to suggest 
that serpent-worship may possibly have been 
after all the starting-point of the idea. 

The Etruscan anthemion on p. 158 is very 
like the Indian naya (Plate 119); the Greek 
details on the same page might have been 
suggested by the young leaves of the iris, 
which seem to me clearly to have suggested 
the Assyrian pattern on Plate 8o. 






My 
\ 


Hi 
will 


4 





121. Romanesque detail. 122. Gothic pattern. 


Plate 84. 


Way Wea Sa 
\ AM Sau IE STSeNEs 
WC CE BRIG IAS WHE 

oy We J) Cu ZI 


——S <n 


I527 -1529 





















03S 













lo™: Century German design. 





Tradition in Design. 161 


The resemblance of the Japanese diapers 
on p. 159 to Greek brushwork is explained 
somewhat by the fact that they also are 
brushwork. 

Other Greek details, especially some of 
those on p. 160, take, as before said, dis- 
tinctly the form of lilies. 

In the Romanesque development of the an- 
themion (p. 160) we have, indeed, leaves of the 
most conventional, but there is no mistake 
about its source ; and, strangely enough, the 
leaves spring from a semicircular feature 
resembling that from which the separate 
serpents’ heads issue in Plate I19. 

Here, too, as in the Early Gothic tile pat- 
tern on p. 160, is foreshadowed the fleur-de-lis, 
which assumes a more distinctive shape in 
the Gothic cross on p. 238. Fully developed 
instances of the fleur-de-lis occur on p. 241. 

The fleur-de-lis, says Voltaire, was obvi- 
ously derived from the top of a halberd ; 
but whence, then, the form of the halberd ? 
There is not much room for doubt that the 
actual form of the fleur-de-lis was suggested 
by the iris ; but for all that the ornamental 
shape is only a development of the old idea 
in a somewhat new direction. 

It seems as though, whether because of the 
perpetual recurrence in nature of radiating and 

M 


162 Nature in Ornament. 





123. Concentric forms, seaweed. 


concentric forms, or 
whether because of 
the inherently orna- 
mental disposition 
of the old lines, the 
ornamentist could 
never 
away from them 


get quite 


for long at a time; their influence appears 


even in the comparatively 
natural design on Plate 85. 
Certainly the glass painter 
in designing a cruciform 
nimbus, the detail of which 
is given (124), had no idea 
that he was following Clas- 
sic precedent at all; nor 
he who stencilled the diaper 





124. Gothic. 


of rays on the screen of a Norfolk church 











SS Ss BS SSS 
—— Se I 
or 

=> = a a= Soe 
SSS 2 SSS 
Seti 722s 
Se | 17 ee 
—— * a 


) 
i 


(below). The rays of light 
arrange themselves more or 
less in the familiar order ; 
as do the lines of a cockle- 


a= £2 shell (p. 222),—so much so 
a= ian: — 





2? == that it has been contended 
that the Renaissance shell 
ornament is only a varia- 
tion of the anthemion. 


125. Gothic diaper. In the Renaissance oy- 


Late Gothic Pine 


ni 


\) 





J Akerman Photo tith London 


Ornaments. 





Tradition in Design. 163 


naments below, distinctly 
founded upon the ancient 
lines, the introduction of the 
oak-leaf and of the pods is 
not altogether happy; the 
designs are too plainly made 
up; on the other hand, the 
serrating of the leaves (p. 164), 
and the substitution of pods 
(p. 20) in their stead, are new 
departures, quite justified by 
SUCCESS. 





126. Renaissance 
ornament. 


It is only by such departure that success 
is possible. What has been done is done 
with, so far as design is concerned. Its teach- 
ing is what is valuable,—if only we would learn 


from it the way it was done. We waste our 





127. Renaissance ornament. 


time in copying the 
forms of ancient art in- 
stead of trying to pene- 
trate its secret. 

It is by virtue of its 
eclecticism, not of its 
archeological accuracy, 
that the work of such a 
man as the late William 
Burges has any hold 
upon us. He founded 
himself, indeed, upon 

M.2 


164 Nature in Ornament. 


Early French Gothic, and he was inclined to 
like anything answering to that title, but he 
did not scruple to borrow from Oriental or 
Classic art what suited his purpose. And 
although his manner was archaic, his ideas 
were his own. He found room in his deco- 
ration even for a 
joke now and then, 
the very surest 
sign that he was 
quite at his ease 
in} the whabitgon 
medizvalism he 
chose to assume. 

Such assump- 
tion may not be 
altogether affecta- 
tion in some men. 
Yet our art must 
be ours, whatever 
else it may be. 
A man may confine himself to the lines of 
tradition and follow them, if he will, or if 
he must ; but why follow traditional forms? 
there is no good tradition for that. 








128. Renaissance anthemion. 


Plate 85 


2uO1i1 ch} 


mee 


| 


VLOMUSAAOD 


0 


‘My Wopuoy weurexy Sautep kg 


Sanayi eioat 


‘ANI- 


a 


OL0nd, 








Be 
TREATMENT. 


THE obvious fitness of certain natural forms 
to certain purposes of ornament, and to 
certain processes of work, needs no pointing 
out. 

Some simple leaves suggest of themselves 
how easily they could be rendered in painting. 
One stroke of the brush is enough to indicate 
a blade of grass or a willow-leaf; a series of 
touches will express at once the compound 
leaves of the acacia, tare, or other pod-bearing 
plants. On Plate 118 such leaves are used 
indefinitely to suggest indeterminate foliage. 
Again, the petals of many flowers may be 
painted with so many dabs of the brush. 
With the finger-tip one can indicate a bunch 
of berries, a berry at each touch. And not only 
in painting is this so ; each particular craftsman 
sees in nature the chance for his particular 
craft, and, if he is worth his salt, seizes it. 

It is clearly the business of the ornamentist 
to select the natural types which lend them- 


166 Nature in Ornament. 


selves to his purpose; not to take things as 
they come, but to choose for painting, forms 
which are paintable; for carving, what is 
carvable; for metal, malleable shapes; and 
so on. 

It would be absurd to adopt for any process 
of conventionalism a model of which the 
character is inevitably lost in such a process. 
You would not choose for rendering in coarse 
material a type characteristically delicate, 
for a colourless substance one depending 
altogether on its tint, for a dull material 
forms characteristically crisp, or for one diffi- 
cult to manipulate forms full of intricate and 
subtle detail. That would be at best only 
bravado. Ordinarily it comes of sheer ignor- 
ance. In design, as elsewhere, brains count 
for something. 

We have, then, to seek in nature, not only 
beautiful types, but types amenable to our 
artistic purpose and the means by which we 
intend to carry it out. ~Mhe very mentom 
of a material is often enough to suggest avail- 
able types in nature. 

Indeed, it would be time well spent by the 
student if he were to ask himself from time to 
time a question or two of this kind :—To what 
decorative purpose are such and such plants 
fit? or, what plants are adapted to such and 


_ 


Pla 


M 


9 MM Uuopuoy ‘ue mien some he 


‘LNIJ- OLORG 


” 












Treatment, 167 


such materials, to such and such treatment ?>— 
and so on. 

And it should be noted that, just as it is 
not in the most romantic, or what is called 
picturesque, scenery that the landscape painter 
finds subject-matter for his pictures, so it is 
not in the most obviously elegant and grace- 
ful forms of growth that the designer seeks 
his inspiration. The convolvulus, the passion- 
flower, and the birch tree, do not lend them- 
selves especially to ornament. 

The experienced designer gets to know how 
useful some forms are, and how hopeless 
others. He knows, too, that nature, kind as 
she is to those who approach her in the spirit 
of conciliation, never does his work for him. 
Natural form is resolved into ornament, that 
is to say, only by treatment. 

This is a point on which dogmatism is 
peculiarly dangerous, and advice of practi- 
cally no value. An artist must settle for 
himself what he shall render, and how he shall 
render it. No one but himself can determine 
for the individual what he can do. He may 
take by assault the position we pronounced 
impregnable. The conditions of success are 
that he should form a just estimate of his own 
powers, and regulate his ambition accordingly. 

His treatment of a natural type is his 


168 Nature in Ornament. 


justification for choosing it. Having selected 
a type, he should have no great difficulty in 
treating it. Technical difficulties suggest to 
him fresh expedients in design. And if he 
really belongs to the “natural order” of 
designers, he works with perfect ease under 
all manner of limitations as to space, line, 
colour, and soon. The weight of conditions 
only steadies him. 

Between the treatment which consists in 
merely composing natural forms with such 
regard to decorative needs as may constitute 
what by a stretch of terms is called orna- 
mental arrangement, and the reduction of 
such forms to ornament pure and simple, 
there is the widest possible range, the whole 
range of design in fact. The merely pictorial 
treatment, on the one hand, seems as remote 
from ornament as the absolutely abstract 
invention, on the: other, 1s) removedteinem 
nature. And yet it is impossible to deny 
that a painter, for example, may combine with 
a very natural rendering such regard to the 
conditions of design as will constitute a 
decidedly decorative, if not precisely orna- 
mental treatment. 

Such a treatment is exemplified im) Plate 
86, part of a frieze by Mr. Muckley. This 
is flower-painting, if you like, and not orna- 





ames Akerman,London .W.C 





br 
z 
rr 
° 
r 
° 
x 
a 


hVham Morris. 


Fruit pattern, 


AY 





Treatment. 169 


ment; but it is something more than mere 
flower-painting: there is design in it. Asa 
printed fabric in which the same flowers must 
perforce recur at regular and very short inter- 
vals, the artist himself and the producer of 
the wall paper would probably be the first 
to admit that it was open to reproach; but 


1 ey | 


ook gl 8 Yair e 
aera 
hi 


~ 





129. Abstract foliage—Persian inlay. 


as a painted frieze, such a rendering has its 
raison adétre. There is no need to say that 
my own sympathies lean towards something 
more severe in design. 

The delightfully restrained foliage above, 
so absolutely ornamental that it might have 


170 Nature in Ornament. 


been derived from any 
one of a hundred dif- 
ferent plants, designed 
by a man who probably 
could not have painted a 
natural flower to save his 
life, fulfils almost per- 
fectly the conditions of 
ornament. Albertolli’s 
feeble celandine opposite 
fails, on the other hand, 





130. Would-be ornamental 


precisely for lack of treat- celandine. 


ment. 

One great charm in more conventional 
treatment is that it reveals the individuality of 
the artist. Mr. William Morris is very plainly 
recognised in the design of the wall-paper on 
Plate 87: It is not otten thats one sees 
design the claims at once of nature and of 
ornament so evenly balanced as they are here. 
The straight lines of the stems, for instance, 
are characteristically natural; but by the direc- 
tion they are made to take in the design they 
give diagonal bands, which fulfil a distinct 
decorative purpose, preventing the eye from 
wandering away in the direction of other lines 
which would be less pleasing. The rendering 
of the fruits again, whilst it is unmistakably 
like nature, is emphatically ornamental. 


Plate 88. 





ames Akerman London. W.C 


1 


by? 


Tint 


Proto 


ain P 


« 


Q. 


aintin 


OT CY” 


rr 


otus 


Ss 


ese L 


bin 


J 


G 





Treatment. 171 


The balance between natural form and 
ornamental design is sometimes very evenly 
adjusted in Chinese art. In Plate 88, for ex- 
ample, forms of leaf and flower are given with 
considerable fidelity to nature. The art has 
consisted mainly in their systematic distri- 
bution. Light-coloured water-lilies occur at 
regular intervals, backed each by a leaf in 
middle tint, with leaves in reverse of still 
darker tint connecting them, the light ground 
being diapered over with wave lines (appro- 
priate enough to the water-lily), so as to give 
value to the whiteness of the flowers. The 
scheme is here very simple, but it results 
in extremely beautiful 
colour, and nature is not 
outraged. 

There is a wonderful 
look of nature, too, in the 
quite ornamental render- 
ing of the “kiss-me- 
quick” below. Compare 
it with the more artificial 
flower on Plate 44. 

Other instances’ of 
Chinese treatment occur 
on Plate) 76, and ion 





131. Chinese rendering of p. 29. 
a The ornamentist arrives 


172 Nature in Ornament. 





132. Comparatively natural treatment of poppy. 


very soon at the conviction that it is of no 
use entering into any kind of competition 
with dature.- Ileris net) impressed) by ume 
antiquity of the old, old theory that what is 
fittest in nature is without more ado most fit 
for ornament. 

In the design on Plate 89, the form goes 
about as far in the direction ols macune saan 
was advisable there to go. ier crovmeneis 
strictly according tonature. A cobwa scandens 
might grow so. All that has been done is to 
make it take lines which conform to the very 
arbitrary demands of the Jacquard loom, and 
to choose details which were not merely 
eraceful and characteristic, but capable of 
being rendered in two flat tints—or, more 
strictly speaking, textures—upon the ground. 

The border of field poppies above, con- 
forms.in an equal degree to ynatune sllines 
flowers are not only chosen and composed, 
they are made to grow as they were wanted. 





Coboea Scandens - Linen Damask. 





Ll veatment. L735 





133. Comparatively natural treatment of fig. 


And again, in the fig border, above, the growth 
is as natural as it could well be, considering 
the purpose for which it was designed. 

The next plate illustrates, on the other 
hand, how far one may safely go in departing 
from nature when it is desired to retain 
something of the character of the plant. The 
dandelion on Plate 90 is systematically re- 
duced to ornament. The lines it takes are 
if not actually systematical, very carefully 
balanced. The jagged edge of the leaf 
assumes almost the form of a Greek wave- 
line. The bracts develop into radiating lines 
of ornament. But though the growth is thus 
made formal, the serration of the leaves thus 
simplified, the bracts thus exaggerated—the 
idea is yet to suggest the dandelion, and no 
other thing in nature. 


174 Nature in Ornament. 





134. Ornamental treatment of strawberry. 


Ornamental treatment consists largely in 
the deliberate disregard of pictorial considera- 
tion. There is nature still in the strawberry 
border above, although nature is not very 
strictly followed. The leaves in particular 
have been subjected to a process of orna- 
mental treatment, similar to that employed on 
Plates 13 and 14, and suggested by the forms 
of Greek brushwork. 

The treatment of the thistle in the German 
wood-carving shown on Plate 91, is so essen- 
tially ornamental that one scarcely knows 
whether to describe it as a rendering of the 
thistle or adevelopment of the scroll. It shows 
in either case the strong influence of tradition. 

Ghiberti’s poppy on Plate 71, although the 
influence of the Classic scroll is very apparent 
in it, is not so much a departure from the 
acanthus scroll as a treatment of the poppy 
somewhat in the manner of the scroll. 


“do LOpde(] | EUOLLUBAUOF) 


O'M Uopuoy ueusemy sewer Aq (BANU OLoOng 











Treatment. 175 


That is really the spirit in which to accept 
tradition. It is not something to be religiously 
preserved, but handed on. 

We are too much in the habit of adopting 
traditional forms, as though all necessary 
modification had been done for us. That is 
not how the good old work was done. It was 
the result of constant reference, if not to 
nature, at least to the conditions of the case ; 
and our modern essays in what is called 
“style” prove us often more Gothic than the 
Goth, more Classic than ever Greek was. 

The result of adopting any ready-made 
selection of types and details, the very signifi- 
cance of which is nowadays a thing of the 
past, is inevitable common-place and dreari- 
ness. Our treatment should be not only 
modern but individual. 

The adoption of the old lines is pardonable 
only on the assumption that the perfect 
rendering has been found and cannot be 
bettered. That may be so _ occasionally. 
And one readily admits there are render- 
ings so perfect in their way that they must 
always influence us; but even though the 
old rendering were perfect, what was perfect 
then is rarely quite what is wanted now; 
and so it cannot fairly be contended that 
tradition, powerful as it is, has any right 


176 Nature in Ornament. 


to say “thus far” to our invention. If we 
halt it is of our own innate weakness. 

Whoever is not quite without initiative 
will believe always in the possibility, if not of 
some new and better tunes than the old, at 
least of some happy variation upon them. 
Only in that belief, in the consciousness of 
the vitality of art, can he put himself into his 
work. Designer, he must believe that there 
is yet possible such a thing as design ; artist, 
he must recognise that art is not such an 
artless thing as, on the one hand the devotees 
of nature, and on the other the slaves of the 
past, would have him suppose. 


pasa Te 
Sos ak 








James Akermen,London .W.C 


an Gothic Thistle Scroll.Wood Carvin 


-TinT, 


Proto 


~ 


Germ 





177 


XI. 


ANIMALS IN ORNAMENT. 


No doubt the most amenable model for orna- 
ment is to be found in vegetable growth. 
This is not because it is without order—the 
anatomy of plants needs, indeed, as careful 
study as that of bones and muscles—but 
because in vegetation the proportions of the 
parts are naturally subject to such infinite 
variety, that, so long as one obeys the general 
law of growth, there is no great fear of over- 
stepping the bounds of verisimilitude; and 
verisimilitude, not “truth to nature,” is the 
law to which ornament owes obedience. 

The forms of birds and beasts lend them- 
selves less kindly, but still more kindly than 
the human form, to ornamental manipulation, 
The less, that is to say, one is likely to resent 
a liberty with the normal proportions of a 
thing, the more readily it can be turned to 
account. 

It is not surprising, then, that the orna- 
mentist has sought his inspiration mainly in 

N 


178 Nature in Ornament. 


vegetable growth; but it would have been — 
amazing if he had found it nowhere else ; since 
the summer noon-day landscape is buzzing 
with insect life, and the flowers themselves are 
ornamented more or less with living creatures 
which the artist would be blind to ignore in 
his design. 

Bird, butterfly, and moth are indeed so 
obviously useful in any scheme of composition 
that they have very frequently been made 
use of merely to stop gaps in the designer’s - 
ornament—or in his invention. 

One danger in the use of living creatures in 
ornament is lest they should start out of the 
picture, a danger not altogether avoided in 
Plate 16, where the birds, though not pre- 
cisely natural, are too picturesquely treated 
to harmonise with the scroll. 

Indeed, in Grzco-Roman, or what we com- 
monly call Pompeian, decoration the beasts 
are for the most part mere blots on otherwise 
very likely graceful ornament. And it was just 
so in the Renaissance ornament immediately 
founded upon it—in much of Da Udine’s 
design, for example, and in that of Giulio 
Romano. ‘To have taken the trouble to set 
out his design in delicate and graceful lines, 
as on Plate 17, and then to pescheupen 
them ostriches, donkeys, and the like, seems 


(PF Yi, Ae: 
Nag Be $s 


D Fiz Q 
a XS 


j/ 


— 
= 
~~ 
7 
a! © 

aia: © 


wo 


si 


\ o 


ASS 


——S 


KS 
, 4 





a VES a 
LP CS) 


Japanese Cranes. 





Animals in Ornament. 179 


something like sheer perversity on the part of 
the artist. 

Whatever may be the temptation to intro- 
duce into a design anything which will occupy 
an empty space and complete the composi- 
tion, without regard to natural fitness at all, 
it is really as absurd, when you think of it, 
to put together night moths and daisies, 
or butterflies and evening primroses, as it 
would be to paint peacocks strutting about 
on arctic shores, or polar bears prowling in 
the jungle. 

It is not meant to say, of course, that in 
ornament only the particular creature which 
preys upon a plant should ever be associated 
with. it. But it is an additional source of 
interest when such creatures have some ex- 
cuse over and above that of filling a vacant 
space. Here, as everywhere, nature herself 
will often furnish the designer with a valuable 
hint. Notice the bronze-green beetles forag- 
ing in the full-blown rose. See the bees on 
the sunflower: they may be found diapering 
its plain disc in the most interesting manner 
but the incident has never been made much 
use of in ornament, not even when the sun- 
flower reigned, for a brief moment of fashion, 
over all English ornament. 

You may have noticed also how the common 

m2 


180 Nature in Ornament. 























135. Dolphins used as ornament. George Fox. 


broom, of which the foliage is so insignificant 
as to go for little, is sometimes dotted over 
after a shower of rain with the daintiest little 
snails, whose delicately-marked shells form 
quite a feature in the pattern of the shrub. 

It is a very common fault in modern orna- 
ment to introduce into it animals or human 
figures for the sake of bringing them in— 
as though merely by their introduction the 
design gained an additional artistic value. It 
is only when such figure or animal serves 
some distinctly ornamental purpose that it 
does so, only then that it ceases to detract 
from the value of the desionm | (Micuneston 
animals in ornament should themselves de part 
of the ornament—as they are in the designs of 
Signorelli and Holbein (p. 202 and Plate 103), 
and as they vare im the iirieze above aman 
dolphins there are not mere porpoises but 


Plate 93. 





Japanese Jortoises 





Kai 


enc; 


eagles 





ia * 
4 
‘ 
t 
. 
F 
be 





Animals in Ornament. ISI 


ornament, as much so 
as the scrolls themselves. 
The dolphin is, of course, 
a familiar feature in 
Classic and Renaissance 
design, but it is not 
often, even in Greek art, 
that it is so gracefully 136. Giecular bind and 
treated as in Mr. George en 
Fox’s design. He has studied 
the antique to some purpose. 
The Japanese have a most 
ingenious way of disposing 
creatures over a given sur- 
face in a manner which, un- 
Peierls tid crest. “Symmetric though 1£ be, is 
distinctly decorative ; and 
though the action 
of the creatures— 


birds, as on Plate 

G2, tortoises, as YQ NL. 
en Plate’ 93; or oe 
whatever they be— a 


is characteristic to 








( 


a very remarkable = 
y .— 
degree, the sim- Sa 
0 


plicity and direct- 
ness with which the 

138. Ornamental indication of birds in 
natural form and flight. 


182 Nature in Ornament. 


as eee 2. A 
== 






139. Diaper of storks and chrysanthemum flowers combined. 


natural action are rendered, is such as to make 
us feel that the graphic power of the artist 
was well under the control of his decorative 
sense or instinct. 

Their remarkable appreciation of what is 
characteristic in natural form enabled the 
Japanese the more effectively to reduce such 
natural form to absolute ornament. 

To adapt a bird shape to the circular shape, 
as on p. 181, or to express the action of flight 
in a few strokes of the brush, as on the same 
page, appears to be as easy to a Japanese as 
it would be difficult to us. His ornamental 
faculty is still more plainly shown in a diaper 
such as that above. Are they storks or 
chrysanthemums of which it is made up? He 
has so successfully combined the character- 
istics alike of bird and flower that you are left 
in wonder as to which it was he adapted to 


ot 


peers neta 





don. WE 


ames Akerman.Lon 


by I 


r 


-Tin 


Proto 


Sy 
Y 


Ss 





Animals in Ornament. 183 





140. Uragon-tly diaper—Japanese. 


the likeness of the other. It is so essentially 
and so simply a diaper, that it seems not so 
much to have been designed, as to have 
grown out of a natural likeness between the 
flower in profile and the bird in flight—which 
likeness would, however, never have occurred 
to us but for the designer. The explanation 
of this combination of bird and flower, as also 
of that on p. 181, is to be found in its heraldic 
significance. The diaper of insects, above, is so 
obvious, when we see it done, that we scarcely 
appreciate the ingenuity with which the dragon- 
flies range themselves in hexagonal order. 
Absolutely archaic or non-natural creatures 
lend themselves very readily to diaper work. 
This is illustrated in the diaper of bats over- 
leaf, and in the primitive patterns from Peru 
on Plate 94. The Peruvian attempts at human 
or semi-human form strike us only by their 
comicality ; but the nondescript creatures in 


184 Nature im Ornament. 


Mf 


(| 





141. Diaper of conventional bats. 


the border at the top of the plate, and par- 
ticularly the fledgelings and the cocks, are 
not only comical but essentially ornamental 
in treatment. The exaggeration of the cock’s 
comb is delightfully imagined. 

The late William Burges, in the pattern 
on p. 185, has cleverly adapted his birds to the 
severe strap-work associated with them. One 
is a little disappointed to find that the inter- 
lacings do not actually form (as they seem at 
first sight to do) the tails of the birds; but 
the design is ingenious and effective; it is 
built obviously upon Byzantine lines. 

The Sicilian silk designers and _ their 








ot NSH il 


xh 





Shes aah 


: As sae i" 


af 


4 ded i 








‘ 
o 





Ne, A 









Gen 





















. ‘ 
sere reall 


at 


we 


Ea he 


ous 


ie 


to - aay 


yr it 


wild 

hi fina il re : H Ht 
win 
i 






“te 


ote wf ft l 
Ath Dr , 


et 

















eit 
My" 









I os dja oy hal 
sl IP qo 
i nth i 1 









if 










































i al hi f ie 
. si 7 . th re 

i ra 

« Uys es. 

| fa) Je fas i 

ii & 9) onl io 

i 10 ae if a ; : i ~ 

a nA i ‘tone nome th ib ui ei é ay | It i p 


PHOTO-LITH) SB.F.IRNIVAL ST HOLBORN E C 


KELL 


Ik patterns. 


Si 


lian 


Sici 





Animals in Ornament. 185 


y Se 


LIM 
NSO ae 


vat oe We 
TO 


SY BAS 
p ISSO 
ey 
rae 
AOS ey) nr 
eB 


4 § 
<2 ly 
ae 


— Cae y 
< CWE 
eM ee ate 


a 
NAAR SOs VAAN ® 


142. Bird diaper te Wm. Burges. 





imitators of Lucca and elsewhere in Italy, 
made considerable use of animal form in 
their weaving—carrying it, indeed, to the 
extremest limit in actual pattern-work. 
There was usually, one may presume, some 
heraldic significance in the creatures they 
represented (Plate 95); but there is a lesson 
in the way they are introduced, and in their 
treatment, especially in the way their broad 
masses contrast with the smaller foliage and 
other such detail associated with them. Fan- 
tastic they often are, but still they are quite 
natural enough. The continual recurrence of 
creatures more like life would be intolerable. 
The fault in the otherwise amusing pattern 
overleaf is that one cannot put up with the 
same little twins ad infinitum. 


186 Nature in Ornament. 


Birds are very frequently to be found 
amidst the arabesques of the Renaissance, 
with which they are not, it must be confessed, 
always in keeping. The introduction ofa bird 
is rather a cheap solution of the difficulty 
there may be in occupying any awkward 
interval in the scroll itself without in any way 
interfering with the grace of its lines or the 
ease of its curves. It was quite a common 
practice to terminate a pilaster or other tall 
panel with an eagle taken bodily from the 
Imperial Roman standard, its feet planted 
firmly on the rim of a vase, its wings amply 
and very conveniently filling those topmost 
anglesvot: the ™ ii woe a 
panel so diffi- Gi Y @ <7) 2 
CUE given iay ae YE 
eo 
instancessatis- Ink 
factorily tooc- -) 
cupy. This is Vv 
well enough, , 
once in a way, is 
tf Onlyaethe : SS on 
eagle be not Ce 
too much of |y We 
an! eagles for y Y 
its place. Or- Ie od 
dinarily the 5 ») 
birds pecking 





143. Repeating figure pattern. 





= ee ee 16 
{eo Century Wood Cary Ino 





Animals in Ornament. 187 


Za 
| KA <> 

G 2 ROUTH > Qy ZL) Hk 

RN TIP SMT 


fh a Adal Aida Midi diad did de MD te Dd De DMM dn De didnt 





144. Conventional peacock border—Indian. 


at berries or what not in Renaissance ara- 
besque, as on Plate 96 (and in the Roman 
work from which they are borrowed), are 
comparatively too real. They would be more 
in place had they been modified in conformity 
with the ornament about them. 

The Oriental ornamentists were invariably 
more careful in this respect. The peacocks, 
for example, at the head of the page, whilst 
like enough to nature to be recognised at a 
slance, are quite conventional enough to 
correspond with the foliage ; and their value 
as masses of solid colour amidst the smaller 
and more broken detail is none the less on 
that account. 

As a rendering of the bird, and especially 
of the bird’s wing, the Indian example 
leaves much to be desired—how much will 
be seen if you compare it with the ancient 
Egyptian renderings. The vultures over- 
leaf, and the hawk on p, £89, afford types of 


188 Nature in Ornament. 


eesee @ 7? 
eo Pe et aie ve . 

i7_ Za Za “e 

SS Sa 

SS es 





145. Egyptian'wing treatment—vultures.,* 


simple, dignified, and decorative wing-treat- 
ment. 

But it is not only in birds that wings occur 
in Ornament. They are appended “(more 
especially in Renaissance art) to every con- 
ceivable thing, to sphinxes and chimeras, men 
and animals, griffins and all manner of gro- 
tesques, cherubs’ heads, globes, hour-glasses, 
and symbols of every sort. 

{In adapting wings to the human form the 
great danger is that of disproportion. To make 
them of sufficient size to support the body is 
out of the question ; the design would appear 
all wings. All that is to be done is to propor- 
tion them decoratively to the figure, without 
any attempt to make them mechanically 
adequate. One may suppose them to be 
features which through disuse have dwindled 
to proportions artistically adequate. The 


Animals in Ornament. 189 


tiny cupid’s wing, for example, just budding 
from his chubby shoulders, the mere germ of 
a wing, seems to belong more intimately to 
his body than any other form of wing yet 
invented. 

Still more difficult is it satisfactorily to 
arrange the wings about a cherub’s head. 
One remembers in certain old windows a 
glory of colour resolving itself, as you look, 
into a mystery of mingled wings and angel 
faces; but the attachment of the wings is 
best not too closely inquired into. Neither 
is it well to consider too accurately the 
mechanique of the wings in which Della 
Robbia embeds his sweetest of child faces. 
One is too thankful for their beauty to 
blame him for not having accomplished what 
is after all impossible. 





146. Egyptian wing treatment—hawk. 


190 Nature in Ornament. 


The idea, common enough, of wings in 
the place of arms or in the place of ears 
(it is beautifully carried out in the bronze 
head of Hypnos, in the British Museum), 
seems more anatomically possible, and may 
be most ornamentally rendered. 

In dealing with quadrupeds a single 
device has for the most part sufficed: alike 
in the winged bull of Assyria, in the Greek 
eryphon, and in the Evangelistic symbols of 
early Christian art, the wing is made usually 
to grow from the shoulder so as to form, as it 
were, one member with the fore leg—remov- 
ing the creature, indeed, by so much from 
nature, but not bringing it anywhere near to 
the ideal winged creature. The mechanism 
of the trick is too apparent. There is none of 
that mystery by which alone we might pos- 
sibly be impressed. In Sansovino’s griffins, 
on Plate 104, one misses the fore legs no 
doubt, but the wings which take their place 
seem on that very account to be anatomically 
more possible. 

The outspread bird’s wing has always been 
considered a most valuable “property” in 
ornament; but although it is usually the 
bird’s wing that one meets with in design, the 
bat’s wing occurs also, more or less in associa- 
tion with devils and dragons, as the bird’s 


Plate 97 





C.F KELL, PHOTO-LITHO.8,FURNIVAL ST HOLBORN,E.c. 


Conventional Butterflies 





Animals in Ornament. IQ! 





147. Bat diaper. 


wing with angels and cherubim. The bat 
itself is a symbol very frequent in Chinese 
art and its derivative Japanese (pp. 184, 194, 
and above). It is represented, however, in 
the gayest of gay colours, and in shape so 
turned to ornament that it is difficult at first 
to identify it. Were either form or colour 
more naturally rendered the effect would cer- 
tainly be less distinctly decorative. 

The wing of the butterfly is so obviously 
ornamental that one wonders how it is that 
only the Celestials have turned it to any 
good account. In their embroideries especially 
the Chinese have made admirable use of it 
(Plate 76)—ornamentalising it sometimes in 
the most extravagant manner, as, for example, 
in the most important instance on Plate 97, 
where the under-wings are fringed somewhat 
in the manner of the tail of their sacred bird, 
which itself is a sight to see, 

That the anatomy of the creatures found in 


192 Nature in Ornament. 


ornament is so seldom all that a naturalist 
might desire (the creatures on Plate 98 are 
more realistic than an ornamentist could wish), 
is sometimes, and to some extent, owing toa 
the exigences of ornamental design ; but it is 
more often the fault of insufficient acquaint- 
ance on the part of the designer with the 
facts of zoology. 

Few men have even nowadays the chance 
of studying nature from end to end; and in 
the middle-ages the “Zoo” was not within a 
shilling cab-fare of the church. The Medi- 
eval sculptor, however, was, according to his 
possibilities, more studious of nature than we 
are accustomed to suppose: there is abundant 
evidence of that in his work. His compara- 
tive ignorance saved him as a rule from 
too directly recalling this or that zoological 
type in the demon or dragon of his invention 
—and presumably of his belief. 

Of the decorative, as distinguished from the 
ornamental rendering of animal form, this is 
not the occasion to speak at length. The 
Egyptian lion statues and the Assyrian bas- 
reliefs show what may be done in adapting it 
to decoration; and these abstract renderings 
come very near to perfection—nearer, at all 
events, than any modern has come with his 
zoological realism. 


eH 
bs ra x 





London .W.C 


dames Akerman 


if, by 


Tin 


“Proto 


eder. 


Ae 


an Kenaisance, 


Geri 


TT) 


Mode 





Animals in Ornament. 193 


The sculptors of these master-works had 
no occasion very likely—happy mortals !—to 
concern themselves about treatment; their 
manner was traditional, and art had not yet 
“emancipated” itself from the control of fit- 
ness. Possibly the sculptor exercised no sort 
of conscious restraint over himself. He was 
a slave, perhaps, and did as he was bid, or 
belonged to a caste content to work patiently 
on in the accustomed way. It matters little 
to us why he did thus and thus so long as he 
did it. The moral of his work is the same. 
It is a plea (even though the artist thought of 
no such thing) for self-restraint on our part 
Where he stopped short instinctively, never 
dreaming of realism, we may stay our hands 
deliberately, knowing the value of restraint. 

This we should do in decoration. In orna- 
ment, the modification of all natural form 
being inherently essential to it, even the 
human form divine must step down from its 
pedestal and submit itself to the lowly use to 
which it is put. Mention has been made of 
two old masters who could, without offence to 
nature, bend the human shape to ornamental 7 
purposes. In our own day the late Alfred 
Stevens and Walter Crane have shown them- 
selves equal to the task. If others cannot 
modify the human figure without degrading 

O 


194 Nature in Ornaicent. 


it, that may be an argument for omitting. it 
from their scheme of ornament, it is no excuse 
for the introduction of raw nature in the place 
of art. It is one of the ill effects of compelling 
every student of design to acquire a certain 
acquaintance with the figure, that he is tempted 
to introduce it in season and out of season 
into his compositions, at the cost very often of 
consistency and ornamental effect. One is 
inclined to ask what the little Love on Plate 
99 is doing amongst the scrollery. It would 
be at least as satisfactory without him. 





148. Embroidered bat—Chinese. 





17" Century Scroll Work, S.Gribelin 





195 


XH. 


' THE ELEMENT OF THE GROTESQUE. 


THAT the element of the grotesque has been 
abundantly abused in ornamental design is 
no argument against the discreet use of it in 
design. But if we would reconcile reasonable 
persons to its use we must ourselves keep 
within the bounds of reason—not of fact 
indeed, but of sober fancy. 

One has a right to expect of creatures, how- 
ever remote from natural possibility, a greater 
degree of consistency than the artists of the 
Renaissance appear to have thought necessary. 
We are not satisfied, for example, that a 
substantial beast should suddenly taper off 
into wiry lines obviously and absurdly out of 
relation to it, or that its neck should be so 
inordinately lengthened that when one comes 
upon the head at last it is with something of 
a surprise: our dissatisfaction is aggravated 
if that head should not after all tally with 
the body, as when a human head is joined to 
the trunk of a quadruped. 

. O 2 


196 Nature in Ornament. 


It is a peculiarly unpleasant shock to us to 
find that a creature has not only two heads, 
but one at each extremity of its body: even 
of a myth we expect a beginning and an end. 
A scroll may, so to speak, blossom into 
creatures, just as a creature may develop into 
foliage ; but it should be that—development ; 
it is not enough that the tail of a beast break 
out into vegetation. We don’t expect a 
creature so far developed as to have what can 
be called a tail, to make quite anew departure 
in the direction of foliage or scrollery ; and we 
resent such freaks, as evincing a want of taste 
in the artist. 

It would be mere pedantry to pretend to 
define in so many words the precise limits 
within which one may take liberties with 
animal form; but one may safely say that 
the more familiar the form is to us, and the 
more realistically rendered, the more dan- 
gerous it is to take them. The grotesqu 
which reminds us obviously of some par- 
ticular animal, is apt to strike one as if it 
changed into ornament instead of developing 
into it; and wherever a “creature fas tne 
appearance of having been put together the 
limits of discretion have been passed. 

Those creations are happiest which seem to 
belong entirely to the imagination of the artist, 


anbsaqesy Gel) el) Aunlaes ql 


) MW Sopuo Ty uentiexy seurer Aq {LNIJ-O10Hd, 


zz 


ee 


: 


of 


Tene 
ee 


ae 
tL he 


LSP POLEOEESO AL SEUSS 








The Element of the Grotesque. 197 


to have been conceived in the spirit of grace. 
We cease to judge them then by any standard 
but that of fit design and beauty. 

There is a peculiar difficulty in harmoniously 
combining in one creature the characteristics 
of various animals. The acceptable grotesque 
must be less a combination of creatures than 
their hybrid offspring in the artist’s brain 
—a dream, a remembrance, a fancy—any- 
thing but a patchwork. There exist, no 
doubt, in nature, impossible-looking animals 
like the giraffe, with its preposterous neck and 
absurd little misfit in the way of a head at the 
end of it; but that is no excuse for dispropor- 
tion in design. 

It is not as with plant form, where we are 
at perfect liberty to shorten or elongate the 
stalks and branches, seeing that under cer- 
tain conditions nature will do much the same, 
modifying them, indeed, almost out of our 
knowing. She seldom takes such liberties 
with the limbs of animals, and when she does 
we take exception to it, and find deformity 
in the abnormal proportion. 

The artist may, in short, only do what he 
can make seem right. The romancer who 
can imagine, like Dumas, impossible persons 
involved in impossible adventures, and yet 
interest you in them, make you for the 


198 Nature in Ornament. 


moment believe while you read—or at least 
forget to doubt—has, so far as you are con- 
cerned, created them. The ornamentist may 
equally be permitted to invent what never 
was or could be, if he can but persuade you, 
while you look, I will not say to believe in 
the impossible, but to accept it. 

The taste of the artist and the prejudices 
of the critic will not always gotogether. There 
will always be risk of offending susceptibilities 
in introducing the grotesque element into 
design. On the other hand, to repudiate the 
grotesque is to give up a valuable element 
in design, one difficult to secure by means of 
pure ornament—and worth having, even at 
some risk of offence. 

One may recognise the temptation to its 
abuse, and the remarkable unanimity with 
which artists of the Renaissance succumbed 
to temptation, and yet make bold to assert the 
possibility, and the existence too, of such 
tasteful and artistic use of the grotesque as 
only a purist could find it in his uncomfortable 
conscience to reject. 

To persons of a somewhat rigid way of 
thinking, and they are not a few, the impossi- 
bility of grotesque creatures is quite enough 
to condemn them; they see only, as they 
would say, the absurdity of it all; they would 


(Plate 101. 








C F Bell PhotoLitho,8 Fuenvel St 


umination. 


\] 


e Gothic | 


AT 


i 





Lhe Element of the Grotesque. 199 


pass over the grotesque as a mere blot upon 
Italian arabesque, of which it is so essential a 
characteristic. I would maintain on the con- 
trary, that something at least of the variety 
and pregnancy of Quattro- and Cinque-cento 
design is due to it, and accept it for what it 
is, a most convenient and effective means 
of counteracting the dangerous tendency of 
mere ornament to lapse into monotony and 
all-overishness. 

Moreover, whatever we may think of it indi- 
vidually, it would seem as though not only the 
Cinque-centists, but artists before and after 
them, came to the unanimous conclusion that 
they could not well get on without something 
of the sort—and he would be a marvellously 
clever fellow who could do without it all that 
the craftsmen of the Renaissance did with its 
help. 

An artist must obey his conscience. It 
treats him harshly when it cuts him off from a 
resource so helpful in design, so near at hand, 
so needful. 

The fact is, a mere scrollwork of something 
like vegetable form does not always suffice. 
The designer wants here and there certain 
masses, or weight, which it is difficult to get 
in the form of flowers and such like. The 
difficulty has been solved sometimes, or rather 


200 Nature in Ornament. 


shirked, by the introduction of actual figures, 
human or animal, among the foliage, excusable 
only when they are reduced, by their treat- 
ment, to strict conformity with the surrounding 
foliage. 

The nearer such creatures approach to 
reality, the more incongruous they appear in 
the midst of non-natural foliage. You feel 
that in the Italian decoration on Plate 100, 
the masks and griffins belong, in a way, fairly — 
well there ; and the goat-legged figures are not 
so much amiss; but the life-studies below are 
entirely out of place. So are the little birds 
in the corners. As for the disproportionate 
duck, it beats the record of absurdity. Dispro- 
portion of this kind is a very common failing 
in design. For, to tell the truth, the difficulty 
of keeping figures, human or animal, at all in 
scale with the surrounding ornament is very 
considerable. In the Persian panel on p. 1609, 
the ducks are disproportionately small. And 
again, in Plate 101, the figures are for once 
overpowered by the ornament. The artist 
was no doubt naively pious: to us such an 
“ Annunciation” is simply grotesque. 

In the case of creatures frankly ornamental, 
with no claim to possibility, the danger of 
disproportion is in great part avoided. You 
are enabled by means of them not only to get 





- 


“ ” 7 be = 
Puoro-Tinr, by James Akerman London 


Lustre Plaques. 





Lhe Element of the Grotesque. 201 


just the weight and mass you require, but to 
get it just where you want it; whereas, in the 
case of natural objects, there should be some 
sort of dramatic reason for their occupying 
this or that position. The creature in the 
centre of the upper plaque on Plate 102 gave 
weight just where it was wanted. In the case 
of the less absolutely ornamental fishes in the 
lower design, the worm supplied the necessary 
centre of attraction. 

The mere grouping together of creatures, 
human, animal, or monstrous, though it may 
form a kind of grotesque enrichment, seldom 
results in anything which can properly be 
called ornament. It is the resource of the 
figure draughtsman, who relies naturally upon 
forms with which he is familiar, and which 
come more easily to his hand than any severer 
type of ornament. He seldom succeeds in 
producing ornament: when he does, he 
justifies himself by success. 

One may have a personal opinion as to the 
straight and narrow path in design, without 
insisting that all the world should be driven 
along it. And in the presence of masterly 
work one recognises the master, and allows 
that one’s theorising does not apply to him. 

In the work of Holbein and Luca Signorelli 
one sees that the artist has digested his 


202 


Nature in Ornament. 





149- Pilaster by Signorelli, 


knowledge of 
the human figure. 
In seeking orna- 
mental lines, those 
of “the human 
figure came natu- 
rally to him, and 
he was so familiar 
with every turn of 
it that it was easy 
for him to bend it 
absolutely to his 
purpose — which 
purpose was orna- 
ment) “lt isasel. 
dom indeed that 
a master of the 
figure cares enough 
about ornament 
to submit himself 
to its conditions. 
When -he does, it 
is probable that he 
was well grounded 
in if before) ever 
he took: to” the 
figure. That was 
certainly so in 
Holbein’s case. 





Studies 19 Ornamental Figure Work. 





The Element of the Grotesque. 203 


You can see in Holbein’s work (Plate 103), 
how every line and every pose was dictated 
by considerations of ornament, for all the dra- 
matic intention he managed often to combine 
with it. It is pretty plain to the designer that 
such dramatic quality grew out of the lines 
of his ornament, and did not suggest it. It is 
that extra something which the consummate 
artist always throws in—it was not bargained 
for in the ornament. 

Signorelli’s pilaster (p. 202), is more entirely 
made up of the figure—and the upper portion 
of it illustrates to some extent the dangers 
which beset the painter. The lower half 
illustrates how much can be done in figure- 
work almost alone. Only a designer, per- 
haps, can realise how studiously the lines of 
the figures, actively engaged as these may be, 
have been not merely controlled by decorative 
requirements but suggested by them. The 
figures were designed, not worked into orna- 
ment; they are conceived or remembered, not 
taken from his sketch-book. Like Holbein, 
Signorelli too delights to find a reason for the 
form dictated by ornament. 

The work of these men does not go to show 
that the figure is peculiarly amenable to orna- 
mental use ; but it shows at least to what good 
ornamental purpose it may be put by those 


204 Nature in Ornament. 





150. Grotesque iron grille—German. 


who have thoroughly mastered both the 
figure and ornament. They are not many— 
and never were. 

Sansovino’s monsters on Plate 104 are ex- 
travagant, but still ornamental. The lines are 
so cleverly schemed, and the effect is so un- 
deniably decorative, that the strongest objec- 
tion to such detail as that of the two-legged 
quadrupeds at the top of the panel is swal- 
lowed up in admiration of the composition as 
a whole. But Sansovino’s design is by no 
means a model of what arabesque ornament 
should be. Itisaninstance, rather, of what a 
consummate artist may be excused for doing. 

The artist begins by blotting in his design, 
intent at first mainly upon the lines of his 
composition and the distribution of its masses. 
We may take it that it was in order to get the 
requisite weight of form that he roughed out 
certain bolder masses, half accidental perhaps, 
which suggested animals, much as one sees 
faces in the fire. Once he has resolved upon 
such masses in his composition, the designer 





“Puoro-Tixr, by James Akerman,London WC. 


Grotesque Fanel, by Sansovino. 





The Element of the Grotesque. 205 


is bound to give them an interest worthy of 
their prominence. It is so, no doubt, that the 
German ironworker came to design the hel- 
meted and parrot-shaped heads in the grille 
opposite; it was his desire to avoid that 
monotony of line which is the vice inherent 
in wrought-iron work. 

The lines of imagined creatures are in 
the best examples so essentially graceful, so 
obviously inspired by considerations of orna- 
ment, all is so entirely one, that it is self- 
evident, to any one who has himself designed, 
that it was the ornamental consideration which 
suggested the animal element. Certainly it was 
so in Plates 96, 103, 104. Only in that way 
does it seem possible to arrive at a combina- 
tion of grotesque and arabesque so essentially 
harmonious that one has a difficulty in saying 
where the one ends and the other begins. 

The grotesque lends itself delightfully to 
ornamental requirements, but only on one 
condition—that it follow the lines suggested 
by ornamental design. It is especially amen- 
able, because no thought of nature need enter 
the mind of the designer, to hinder the free 
play of his fancy. The lines may be the lines 
of animal form more or less; they must be 
the lines of grace and beauty. Whether the 
animal form be the root from which the orna- 


206 Nature in Ornament. 


ment springs, as in Plate 105, or the outcome 
of the scroll, as in the design on Plate 106, 
the one essential thing is that it should be, not 
merely in harmony with it, but part of it ; gro- 
tesque and arabesque must be one growth: 
the least shock to our sense of congruity is 
disenchantment. 

Scandinavian and Celtic ornament (Plate 
107) never jar upon one. The strange and 
impossible birds, beasts, and dragons dis- 
covered in the interlacings whether of carv- 
ing or illumination, had doubtless a symbolic 
origin ; but, so far as carver or penman was 
concerned, he never conceived them first as 
independent and then twisted them into 
knot-work ; it is perfectly plain that the de- 
signer gladly accepted the symbol because 
he knew the value of emphatic masses in or- 
nament, and found it most convenient to end 
his strapwork with a head, to broaden it out 
somewhere into a body, to make it branch 
into legs or wings, as best suited his composi- 
tion. In short, he invented his interlacings, 
and then by the addition of legs, wings, head 
and so on, converted it into a sort of dragon. 

Abuse of the grotesque, which goes far to 
account for the disfavour with which any- 
thing of the kind is by some regarded, 
comes partly at least from the fact of the work- 


Hs oe 


i nie ae One ei thee fed ss a i ' | ve 


ees WG : o 
ae ( qi) L 


; i % 


Poy Tt hae 
I 7 rast : i y i 


ns h : 





Grotesque figure, MarcoVente da Ravenna. 





The Element of the Grotesque. 207 


man being more adept in figure-work than in 
ornament. In the design, for example, of the 
School of Fontainebleau there is no rest from 
creatures, human or animal, starting out at 
you ; it is bursting out into life all over. 

The artist had usually, no doubt, some 
reason of construction or balance for the in- 
troduction of his perhaps ugly grotesque or 
demi-figure—sufficient it may be to justify the 
introduction of the figures, but certainly not to 
excuse their ugliness. Memory calls to mind 
certain human skulls in marble, bedecorated 
with foliation in itself more or less graceful, 
which are enough to make one loathe for the 
time being the very thought of the grotesque. 

This is just one of those cases in which 
the absurdity of imitating old work becomes 
most apparent. Here, at all events, one can- 
not safely follow precedent; it would be a 
warrant for every imaginable extravagance. 
In old work it is easy to forgive such things ; 
one finds a certain compensating quaintness 
about it; but our pretence of quaintness is 
intolerable affectation. 

The problem of the modern designer is how, 
without the ugliness or incongruity marring 
the beauty of old work, to get that breadth of 
mass, that variety of detail, that richness of 
effect, which we see and admire in it. And he 


208 Nature in Ornament. 


will find the simplest solution of the difficulty 
in removing his imagined creatures consider- 
ably from nature. They should be fancies, not 
misshapen or distorted facts. The foliation of 
animal form, fantastic as it may be, should seem 
to us almost a matter of course—what, under 
certain impossible conditions, nature might 
possibly have done. It is so in the land of 
dreams. : 

The objection to the animals, grotesque or 
natural, which figure among the scrollwork 
with which the Loggie of the Vatican are deco- 
rated, as also in the panel from Mantua by 
Giulio Romano (Plate 17), is that they are 
inconsistent with the ornament ; it is too thin 
to support them, too conventional to har- 
monise with them; they are not part of the 
ornament but patches in it. 

This is a common fault, more apparent in 
painting than in sculpture. In colour other 
than monochrome one expects something in 
the direction of natural colour; and the 
sphinx, for example, which is half flesh colour 
and half fur colour, looks more than ever a 
compound and not a creation. So also with 
the texture which a painter is tempted to give. 
The vaguer a monster the more possible he 
appears. Realise him and he becomes ridicu- 
lous. When hair and scales and feathers are 





Grotesque Scroll. 





Lhe Element of the Grotesque. 209 





151. Wings reduced to ornament. 


all naturally depicted you miss the natural- 
ness in the creature to which they, it can’t be 
said belong, but are appended. 

If a figure such as that on Plate 105 may 
tail off into ornament (the doubt suggests 
itself whether, in that case, the figure should 
be quite so real) there is not only no reason 
why his ears should not be foliated and his 
hair flow off into scrollery too, but every 
reason why they should: it is better so— 
more logical certainly. 

Again, in the case of the winged head above, 
it is surely permissible to remove such an im- 
possibility still further from the possible. And 
from the point of view of naturalism, the abso- 
lutely ornamental appendages strike one, in 
such a connection, as less absurd than obvious 
goose-wings would appear. A fantastic ren- 
dering of the wing is plainly compatible with 
the grotesque (Plate 108). There at least 
no one can quarrel with a departure from 
naturalism, though the detail be so absolutely 

P 


210 Nature in Ornament. 





rae Tt wT 
sal ea a) 


ol 





i, 


' as 


i 


hemi : 
<8 AF fl ‘al a 
! | i ! : 
= 


i i 

































































































































ANAT ANIL y 
Hn nnn il 4 








aT ‘it nr 


152. Ornamental dragon—Japanese. 


ornamental as to partake, as it often does, 
more of the nature of foliage than of feathers. 
Over and over again the sculptors of the 
Renaissance have shown that it is possible to 
endow a monster with members which are 
neither arms nor wings, and yet something 
more alive than mere scroll-work. The one 
essential thing, of course, is that such members 
should belong to the creature. 

The Japanese dragon above conforms ad- 
mirably to the conditions of ornament. He 
does not even break out into scrollery—he is 
the scroll. His construction is anatomically 
impossible: from the curl of his mane to the 
turn of his claws he is unlike any imaginable 
creature. Yet he is fullof life and go, grace- 
ful without any loss of energy, and altogether 
one with himself—a fantastically ornamental 
creation. 

I have confined my remarks on grotesques 


Plate 107 


=) tt 
CODY 
(ER 


aI 

BRUaeys ig / 
on ENGNIG . 
RS AMEE 





Keltic interlaced ornament . 





The Element of the Grotesque. 211 





153. Arctic American grotesquerie. 


mainly to the Renaissance, because in it and 
its Classic precedent, but especially in it, the 
ornamental capacities of grotesquerie have 
been most fully developed. The grotesque 
gave character to Gothic art, but did not 
greatly enrich its store of ornament. The 
monk or freemason or whoever he may have 
been, found vent in it for his humour, his satire, 
his humanity in short. It is because they 
show us something of the man behind his 
work that we like his grinning gurgoyles and 
exuberantly humorous miserere seats, ugly 
though they may be. 

There is a certain naivety in all archaic 
art which is likely to strike us as grotesque. 
Of such unconscious grotesquerie it is not here 
necessary to speak, further than to say that the 

PS 


212 Nature in Ornament. 


conscious aim at anything of the kind on our 
part argues us wanting in that first essential 
towards practical design, common-sense—if, 
indeed, it might not justify a certificate of 
insanity. As the work of Arctic American 
Indians one recognises in the design on p. 211 
qualities decidedly ornamental; as to founding 
ourselves upon it in any way, we might as 
well throw off at once the clothes of civilisation 
and tattoo ourselves forthwith. 


Plate 108 


beers 





“Puoro-Tint, by James Akermen. London W.C. 


al Wing Forts 


Convent 





S12 


XL. 


STILL LIFE IN ORNAMENT. 


CONSIDERING the 
popular and _insa- 
tiable desire for 
novelty, it is re- 


markable how little 
variety there is in 
motifs of decorative 
design. 

Our very famili- 
arity with certain 
obviously available 
and consequently 
well-worn types, to 
say nothing of the 
cheap travesties of 


them, should be in itself an 





154. Spring blossoms on the 
stream. 


inducement 


to us to go further afield in search of some- 
thing less hackneyed. 

The historic styles of ornament were, we 
may be sure, much more alive than they 
appear to us in the specimens surviving in the 
collections and museums of to-day. To judge 


214 Nature in Ornament. 










os 
LY ‘ 
DEN SY 


Te Ds. 
yO 


155. Diaper of spiders’ webs. 


EO 





by them alone would be much as if we 
estimated tropical scenery by the botanical 
specimens at Kew. The impression one gets 
from a casual glance round any museum is 
that Greek ornament is all very much alike; 
so is Roman, and so is Renaissance ; and still 
more so is Gothic, Byzantine, Assyrian, or 
Egyptian ornament. 

Undoubtedly there is always a certain dis- 
tinguishing character about the work of any 
ancient period, which is the first thing that 
strikes us about it. The family likeness 
asserts itself before everything to our unac- 
customed eyes. But as the shepherd knows 
his flock, though to us they are just sheep, so 
the artist detects, even in ancient art (which 
was not to our ideas particularly individual) 
the individuality of the craftsman; and the 
more familiar he becomes with it the more he 
sees in it a variety of which at first he had no 
suspicion, 


— 


oe 


Ee 
i. 
| 
| 





“Pnoro -Timt, by James Akerman London W.( 


Japanese Diapers &°,.with a meaning. 





Still Life in Ornament. 215 





156. Diaper of flames. 


On an ancient Roman tripod in the Louvre 
is carved a crown-imperial, quite conventional 
and yet quite unmistakable. The top-knot 
of leaves is very like the Greek anthemion ; 
at the top is a bee; two more bees attack 
the flowers, and fill the gap where naturally 
no leaves occur; and again there are two 
others between the foot-leaves and the leaves 
of the stem, where there would be in nature an 
empty length of stalk. If an artist of our day 
had introduced such a composition into Greek 
work he would have been accused of seeking 
inspiration rather from a Japanese than from 
any Classic source. 

The truth is that all ancient art was once 
alive, difficult as it seems to be to us to realise 
that obvious fact. 

Nevertheless it would appear that Japanese 
art is not only more directly and spontaneously 
natural than, for example, Classic art, but that 
its range is wider and more varied. Japanese 


216 Nature in Ornament. 





157- Cloud and bat pattern. 


art has been fashionable, and is now for the 
moment under a cloud of disfavour, the inevit- 
able consequence of reaction. When that is 
dispersed we shall still perhaps continue to 
over-estimate or to undervalue it, according 
to our idiosyncrasy. But, whatever its short- 
comings in the way of grace and purity and 
dignity of form, there is no denying its dis- 
tinctive charm of spontaneity, variety, and 
freshness. 

No one was ever more alert to everything 
in the shape of ornament about him, more 
ready to seize a suggestion from nature, than 
the Japanese craftsman. ‘The snow falls, the 





















































































































‘mM 

































































i 








158. Cloud pattern. 159. Wave pattern. 








Proto-Tint, by James Akerman London .W.C 


arly Greek Wave & Lotus Diaper 


oN 


we 





Stall Life in Ornament. 217 


almond blossoms drop, the rabbit huddles 
itself together (Plate 109), birds leave their 
footprints in the snow, fir needles and peach 
blossoms strew the ground or float upon the 
stream (p. 213), little fishes dart about in the 
pool—whatever happens furnishes him with 
an idea for decoration. The spider’s web, 
with _ leaves 
and _ flowers 
caught in it 
(p. 214), sug- 
gests to him a 
diaper. 

He: is: fan 
indeed from 
conforming to 
our ideas of 
symmetry. He 
does little 
more in some 
cases than dis- 
pose natural 
shapes, _ren- 
dered in the simplest possible manner, in 
an order which, if not precisely ornamental, 
answers to some extent the purposes of orna- 
ment (Plates 2, 91, 93, and 109). 

It would be pedantic to say that decoration 
such as this may not on occasion serve all the 





Ez» (Es 


160. Water and water-lilies. 


NO 
re 
Co 


| 
‘ 
} | 


— 


——=—— DSe=_ OU SS 


nfo ary 


fl 





i 





\ Hie ? 
eM id 
ja 

| | 

g 


— 


a 


——= O_O i 
———S= ee 















wi 
f 
Psion 
esl 
rn, : 
ey 
\) 


Nature in Ornament. 


————— o_O 


SS Oe eee eee eee ae 


il | 
i 
is 


| 


sae 


H 


| 
Ml 


aS ESS — 
—o" i — — ——_ — —— * 
a SS SS _ SSeS SS SS 
SS IBS Ie SI OOS oD oe aS ae eee ae Se SS a ae — 
— ——_—_— ss —_—— ——* —_ SS _ S_ Se OC 
= =-— a — O00 OOO eee iia beast 
SSS 

SS. SS SS_EWFF_F QS LS LSS DS SS LSS eee eS SS SS 
== _ — ———_ SS TS —— SS DS DSS EES eee OOS See re OO 
SSS — SS 5 — 
SSS eS Ee —————— 
ee a ee x 

SS —E — ee 
— ee ——S _ 
SSS 

|S ————— SS ees Meee eee eS —— a ee 

SS ee ee 

————— ——— SS 

—— I a oo a — SV a ee = _— | i = 

p — Co, fa oneal eee eee ae eee See: CO 
= Sot em en emer pe a el ean ee ale nee 
_—— —— — = = 
————— i ——S —— SS FF 

SSS SS ee ee SS SS 

SSS Se — rr —_ 

— — a - ——— eee CL 
eS 8S SS SS ._— ——— 

i = = SSS 
See ee ee —— re 
SE eee OE oo i ae SO a SS ee 
“ ee — ——— a cree lt et 

—————— ——— SS SS a 
= SSS —— 

——— SS SS EE 
SS 


161. Wave pattern, and water-fowl. 


purposes of art pretending to no serious aim, 
such, for example, as that of the cotton 


printer. 


It is not essential that ladies’ dresses 


or peasants’ petticoats should be designed 
strictly on architectural lines. 

If, on the whole, inanimate nature has not 
been turned to full account in ornamental 
design, historic ornament exemplifies pretty 


well its fitness to our 
purpose. The flames 
of fire—to go beyond 
still life—were only 
very occasionally 
made use of by the 
Japanese” (p25); 


CIVNINTINIVIIN 




















NIN ; ‘ UNWIN ATWO 


162. Wave pattern. 


Stall Life in Ornament. 


GSI E 3 7 
> DSK 
S—S 





163. Wave pattern. 


but they were a very common motif of orna- 
ment in Gothic art, so common indeed as to 
give its character and its very name”to the 
style we call Flamboyant. 

In later times, William Blake founded his 
wild style of ornament almost entirely upon 
flames, and there has been even a later 
sect, founding themselves upon him, whose 
ornament is still more alive with tongues of 
fire, still more restlessly flamboyant. 


oon e me. 





t 
‘i 


f 


225 we nm Dn 
aw EAA oe Me : 
iS ag “5 [lt i) pew) 
Yas 57 ( . (Cy, 


| 
"a 
, 





i 
f= > 
= 
———/ 

=? 
= 

i 

X 


“eneeut —_—" 


164. Wave ornament. 165._Wave ornament. 


219 


220 Nature in Ornament. 


In Gothic art, again, cloud patterns are of 
quite common occurrence, although so remote 
from anything aerial that it is only by the use 
to which they are put (as borders round a halo, 
for example) that one knows them to have 
any reference to clouds. That may be said 
alsoy of “Chinese 
and Japanese 
cloud _ patterns 
(@. 26), Wae 
bats certainly 
help to reassure 
one that these 
odd forms do 
stand for clouds. 
Whe* birds on" jo. 
238 are of similar 
Service: at all 
events maeMerermIs 
some variety in 
the various Jap- 
anese renderings. 

(ihe lines) 01 
waves have from 
the first ‘been used Jas ‘ornmanient aie 
Egyptian zigzag, the Assyrian water-diaper, 
and the Greek wave, are among the earliest 
border patterns. There is a late Renaissance 
rendering of the Classic wave_on p. 41. 


ft 


: i 


aa ——— ae 


| 





166. Wave and spray pattern. 


Plate 111, 


(aoe! De 





J Akerman, Photolith London 


Seaweed Borders. 





Stull Life in Ornament. 3 








aes ae 





* eoe* eS AR 
> a atiens ddeads oon Reb) us db? 
+ tows pins dDIDRaw dase eae 
> 


————aareenad so sedans ne anoabahnte MM 2.00 DSS aioe BA Agahe = 
pe DR2 >a)d 2d) r022d?2adusid adhd ddd >) dbrdsrdede oy = 
SS 





167. Decorative rendering of incoming wave. 


In Celtic ornament one sees something of 
the same kind. It is certain that the spiral 
patterns on Plate 107 are suggested by water ; 
as are also some of the carved ornaments of 
the South Seaislanders. Inthe archaic Greek 
diaper on Plate 110 (in which, by the way, there 
isa strong family likeness to familiar Egyptian 
diapers), the lotus is put there as if to prove 
that it is not only taken from, but meant to 
represent, water. Compare it with the wave 
and lotus pattern on p. 217. 

There are certain arrangements of waved 
and zigzag lines which are so_ universally 
employed in ornament that one can scarcely 
describe them as Egyptian, Greek, Gothic, or 
what not; they are simply ornamental sym- 
bols of water, as, for example, in the zodiacal 
sign of Aquarius. 

The Japanese patterns on p. 218 might 
almost pass for Gothic; but the distinctive 


222 Nature in Ornament. 


thing about the Jap- 
anese renderings, and 
they are very various, 
is, that there sis mone 
movement in the water 
(p. 219); and thatthe 
artist turned to account 
the. crest of the wave 
and the spray (pp. 219 
and 220). Wake away from the Sciremla,, 
wave ornament (164) on p. 219, the outer 
frilling of conventional froth, and you have 
a familiar Greek form. Onl pp: 219 and 
220 the spray is represented by round dots. 
The rendering of the in-coming waves on 
p. 221 1S more pictorial im intention, busi 
effect is ornamental too. 

It is only one more sign of the way in which 
we borrow, and 
have always bor- 





168. Shell ornament. 


2 
‘Hl 


th 
] 























= 25 = 33? 3 
rowed, our orna- Bett ee re 
° ae = = SE SS. 
ment, that island- = = SS ae se 
ers like ourselves 27 === SS =e 
= 
should not have 3222 Sse 
Se or 
gone more often to 2#=—=-"2£_22 Sars 
LS lS 
the> sea “shore. for] === 
< - a —— = ————— 
suggestions in de- = fa=s 


sign. Shells of all “2S 


kinds are in them- 169. Seaweed ornament. 















wwe 


Y > 
a 
hot 
wp 


vib 





PINKS 
AB 


core 


» 
Tn RNS 


a4 
A 


‘ 


Ni 


vA 






UY fp 


b Nz 


r . A NK 







} 


> 


aye Gv ) 





veer 


. ey 7S 
hoof 


oGuss Dag r Wi 
f = aS”, WE A LP OW ; Xe a 5 ! 
a YW) i" rl AON 7 LEN, ( AS “| 


HOLBO 






Seaweed Pattern. 





Still Life in Ornament. 223 





170. Heraldic mantling. 


selves so beautiful in line and colour, that 
they are quite sufficient to form the motif of 
ornamental design. 

It is, however, mainly the scallop shell 
which has been turned to account in orna- 
ment—for symbolic reasons, originally, no 
doubt, but also because it is so obviously 
ornamental. It falls, indeed, very nearly into 
the lines of the anthemion, of which it has 
been contended the Renaissance shell orna- 
ment is only a variation. But, as in the days 
of the Renaissance, and of the Roman Empire 
before that, it was quite a common thing to 
supplement decoration in mosaic or stucco 
with actual cockle-shells embedded in the 
walls and pillars, it is natural to conclude that 


224 Nature tn Ornament. 











171. Heraldic mantling—wood carving. 


it was thence the sculptor and the painter 
derived their inspiration. 

The shell is used in connection with a flow- 
ing seaweed pattern on Plate 111, on which 
are also other varieties of seaweed borders. 
But it would have been better to have used 
some other form of shell. Zoujours cockle- 
shell palls upon one at last: one would prefer 
a limpet, or a mussel, anything for a change. 

A more distinctly ornamental rendering of 
seaweed is given on Plate 112, in which the 
scroll, conventional as it is, does not branch 
either accidentally or after the manner of any 
flower, but is forked as seaweeds and lichens 
are. That form of growth is shown also in 
the Japanese ornament on p. 222. 

It is strange how we are inclined to branch 
our scrolls always in the way suggested by 
vegetable growth. Even in the heraldic mant- 
ling of the Middle Ages, where the idea was to 
represent a scarf slashed about and cut into 















ay 


€ 
} 
Oe ae 





SS 


at 

























Pg 
AY ne nate 
} A WH YA 
fips 
oe 


\ 
) 
a AY 
, E te 
| Yi “a 


s ‘ Ee JAZ e i 





AS 
ANA 





Feacock Feather Pattern-Japanese. 


sede 
a AY Feu, Cita 





Still Life in Ornament. 225 


ribbons, the shreds develop into something 
so very much like conventional foliage, that 
the idea of drapery is often altogether lost. 
It is so in the frieze on p. 223 ; and in the old 
German work on p. 224, where it takes almost 
the form of strapwork, the strapwork is un- 
commonly like what in Medizval work of the 
same period does duty for foliation. 

Birds, natural and conventional, are of such 
Common occurrence in ornament, that it 
seems strange their feathers have not been 
put to more use in design—more especially as 
feather ornaments were always largely used, 
not only among savage tribes, but in civilised 
countries from China to the British Isles—the 
-very bedsteads of our ancestors were tricked 
out in plumes, in a way which speaks volumes 
as to their entire unconcern about hygiene and 
even cleanliness: there are rooms of state in 
many a noble mansion which can never have 
been kept wholesome for long, and are some- 
thing to shudder at now. 

Feathers, too, were used as emblems of 
sovereignty—those on which the vultures perch 
on p. 188 have some such significance of course. 
For all that, with one exception, they have 
not been adequately adapted to design. That 
exception is the peacock’s feather. 

It is interesting to compare the not too 


Q 


226 


Nature in Ornament. 


naturalistic rendering of it on Plate 113, with 
the more strictly ornamental modifications 
on Plate 114, and with, Palberts “modem 
Gothic inlay pattern below. 


| 
| 








lh 


SUN y= 
oe 





















ny, 





—— 


ae 








i 





172. 
Inlaid feather ornament. 


B. J. Talbert. 


lt 15 “clear that ene 
Italian versions owe some- 
thing to Oriental inspira- 
tion. In the least natural 
of them there is always 
soine character “ol tne 
original. The mayjolica 
patterns, in particular, are 
in their unlikeness yet so 
like. The Coptic patterns 
(p: 227)" andthe emia 
tile (p. 228)-arey furuber 
removed than ever from 
actuality, but still the 
peacock’s feather is un- 
mistakable. 

In all of these cases 
the feather of itself sutf- 
fices for its ornamental 
purpose, “In Plate wanes 


a new principle comes in: there is a sort of 
connecting stalk with tendrils, an element 
of scroll-work not quite in keeping with the 


feathers. 


But the way they are rendered is in- 


teresting, and the effect is decorative enough. 


Héalian 


(layolica 


f 


ete 16" Centr 





“Puoro-Tint, by James Akerman. London ,W.C. 


Peacock Feather diapers. 





Stell Life in Ornament. 224 


It is a far cry from work of this kind to the 
Rococo ; but one can hardly look at Plate 116 
without seeing in this more than usually 
graceful example of ultra-florid late Renais- 
sance scrollery, a distinct resemblance to the 
ostrich feather. And, knowing how State 
carriages were bedecked with plumes (the 
custom comes 
down to us in 
the conventional 
hearse), one can 
easily imagine 
how it occurred 
to the  coach- 
builder to carve 
feathers some- 
what less flimsy, 
which, moreover 

173-4. code feather border and he could gild | 

cat The very notable 
thing is that this feathery scroll-work is not 
so unlike all other Rococo scrollery. 

A not unusual form of ornament, or sub- 
stitute for it, is the grouping together of 
inanimate things, trophies, &c., as in the 
pilaster panel on p. 229. | 

In connection with certain commemorative 
monuments, there is a sort of reason for the 
introduction of emblems ; and on occasion, as 


Q 2 





2,28 Nature in Ornament. 


for example in the 
Doria Chapel at Ge- 
noa, shields, helmets, 
breastplates, swords, 
and other insignia of 
war can scarcely be 
called out of place ; 
but the conditions of 
ormMament- jare ner 
fulfilled by stringing 

such things together 

Mae ac : saaacle mit ite length of a 
pilaster. The composition on p. 229 may or 
may not be ornamental—but it is not orna- 
ment. Whatever excuse there may be in 
Ancient art for the sacrificial emblem which 
occurs at the top of the pilaster, it has no 
significance, and no excuse in work of the 
Renaissance. 

In work of our own day, the bull’s head 
reminds one too much of the butcher’s shop, 
and the Classic ox-skull is still more un- 
pleasantly suggestive. Artists of the Renais- 
sance, however, seem to have seen no reason 
why they should not treat the skull orna- 
mentally. To many of us the rather graceful 
detail on p. 230 loses all its charm when we 
realise that the cartouche is really a skull. 

It is possible, of course, to dispose almost 
any series of objects, natural or artificial, in 





ine 




















ig 
vf 
Ai 


Tle 


ae 









































J Akerman, Photo lth London 


Feacock Feather pattern, Turkish. 





Stall Life in Ornament. 229 


such order as to present 
what passes for an orna- 
mental appearance ; repeat 
a shape several times over, 
and it forms a sort of pat- 
term; but that is not ex- 
actly ornamental design. 

The occasional introduc- 
tion of such a thing asa cor- 
nucopia (Plate 99), or a vase 
(Plates 15, 57, 96, &c.), is not 
only useful sometimes as 
affording a convenient start- 
ing point for growth, but 
it may be the means of in- 
troducing a mass which is 
very valuable in the com- 
position. In that respect the 
recurring vases in the centre 
plaque on Plate 18, and in 
the border on Plate 25, are 
useful, casually as they occur 
in the design. 

The most satisfactory of 
such vases are the least re- 
alistic. In Persian art in 
particular we see the thing 
reduced to the mere outline 
of avase filled in with orna- 
ment, which by its treat- 





DRO Nature in Ornament. 


ment contrasts with the floral ornament 
springing from it. An equally arbitra, 
rendering of the vase occurs on Plate 28, the 
pattern on which must be taken to represent 
the water in it. 

The shield, the tablet, and the cartouche 
are so conspicuously useful in ornamental 
composition, that at certain periods of design 
artists seem with one accord to have relied 


Sel 
er 
TC Wey F 
aa) MCE oe 
RNG | Dy a 





177. Renaissance skull ornament. 


upon them, to the exclusion of other and more 
fitting devices. 

Used for its own sake, or merely for the 
convenience of composition, shield, tablet, or 
cartouche becomes a mere stock property, a 
shift or stop-gap in design. Its introduc- 
tion is quite happy only when it is called 
for to bear a coat-of-arms, an inscription, a 
cypher, an emblem, or whatever may form 


Plate 116. 


e p2 

Sree : 

» aN i 5 a Ni eat Gaal y Hy : 

Sih) te WIR eth) Ni y THON Ss at HA 
eo 


wo i 


f a 


A lg Ss 
KZ 
~ ea Fel 


ov tS e i 
AC wae 
Hf : i ; 
SS man 
Wii 





Rococo Scroll work, Passarim. 





Stall Life nm Ornament. a0 


] QUOTE AUS UT TUCO a ES SDT 


t ve it COLNUPEET ROUEN LU CENTURY EEE AUNT 
ALY) 


GUA 


Stee SMcpat Bi Ko S 
Ui ‘ 


Int 
PTE! 














Hu einen 





178. Early Phoenician wreath. 


part (and a prominent part) of the decorative 
scheme. 

Lifeless things have thus their place in 
ornament; but they need to be used with 
great discretion. This applies also to what is 
more generally called still life. Bunches of 
cut flowers are not in themselves ornament, 
and the abundant use of them argues little 
faculty of design. The garlands of fruits 
and flowers which trail over late French 
Renaissance art, are at best a makeshift, fit 
only for a frivolous French boudoir. But 
that a wreath may be used in a manly way 
is shown in the early Phoenician ornament 
above, which is dignified enough in design 
even for the decoration of a sarcophagus. 
Nor is there any fault to find with Mr. Fox’s 
swags on p. 180. 

There is nothing to wonder at, that in 
countries where vines and roses and all 
manner of flowers are trained to grow in 


222 Nature in Ornament. 


earlands, and where it is the custom, as in Italy 
to this day, to hang strings of fruit and maize 
on the walls of the houses to dry in the sun 
(where they form a delightful decoration), the 
idea of something of the kind should have 
found its way into ornament. 

It was not altogether a bad idea, and it had 
this to recommend it, that it afforded lines 
not otherwise to be got, and lines, too, very 
valuable in decoration. 

That the device has been very much abused 
is only too obvious. We cannot afford lightly 
to give up the quality of vitality in ornament ; 
and the festoon or swag is open to the objec- 
tion that it is at best “still life,’ and as such 
inferior in interest to living, growing form. 

The inherent sinfulness of the device is an 
invention of the purist. The offence is, once 
more, mainly in proportion to the realism. 
The more a swag looks like weight, the more 
it wants suspending ribbons to hold it up and 
nail-heads to attach it to, the less endurable 
it is. There is no occasion to waste one’s 
wrath over wreaths so absolutely ornamental 
in intention as those of Nicolaus Drusse in 
ilaie sii. 

The mere suggestion of a garland, such as 
you see in quite early Renaissance work, can 
offend no evenly balanced mind. It is often 


Plate 117. 





Century Scrollwork. 


17” 





Still Life in Ornament. 233 





179. Swag of fruit bunches. 


little more than a border of leaves and fruit, 
strictly confined, it may be, within the lines of 
parallel mouldings. It looks as though the 
sculptor had felt the need of a break in this 
border, and so had crossed it by a ribbon at 
intervals. Perhaps he felt there should be 
some beginning and some end to his border, 
and so he finished it with bows and _ loose 
ends. You cannot help seeing that his 
starting point was not so much the idea of a 
wreath as the idea of due enrichment. That 
his design resolved itself into a wreath was 
something in the nature of an accident. It 
happened so. 

In later Renaissance swags you are often 
painfully aware how proud the artist was of his 
fruit bunches, and especially of the masterly 
way in which he could carve them. There 
is, it must be owned, a certain dandified self- 
sufficiency in the not ungraceful swag above, 


BVA Nature in Ornament. 


with its flying ribbons occupying the vacant 
space. 

Admitting the trivial purpose to which they 
have been put during the last century or two, 
I would like to say a word even in favour of 
ribbons. Nothing could well be worse than 
millinery in stone, in wood, or in serious 
painted decoration; but the frippery of the 
later Renaissance is no reason why we should 
not avail ourselves, within limits, of the grace 
of line suggested by a strip of ribbon floating 
in the air: that too 1s matures Oulyepre 
serve us from actual millinery. The Gothic 
variation of the ribbon or label is dignified 
enough and admirably decorative. 

It is pride of execution, and especially 
of realistic execution, which is the real pit- 
fall in the path of ornament. Even what 
pretends to be no more than a memory of 
something done before, should appear to be 
always the outcome of the architectural or 
other conditions, designed to go just there, 
and introduced because just such enrichment 
was wanted. 

It must not be understood, however, that the 
reproduction of merely architectural features 
by way of ornament, is here advocated. The 
Pompeian decoration on Plate 118 is indeed 
graceful and delicate, more especially as com- 


Ll 


wees anes 
PrP SST SSS 


-S 











Fompeian Wall pamting. 





Stall Life in Ornament. 235 


pared with the “canopies,” which were the 
stock in trade of so many Gothic craftsmen ; 
but, whether in true or (what was more usual) 
false perspective, such constructions are a 
very poor substitute for design. They have 
been employed pretty freely, and will be so 
again no doubt. But the unprejudiced taste 
is so little likely to be led astray by their 
attractions, it is hardly necessary to point 
out that the device is really danal beyond 
endurance. 


236 Nature in Ornament. 


XIV. 


SYMBOLIC ORNAMENT. 


ORNAMENT has primarily nothing to do 
with story, poetry, or other purpose than 
that which it sets itself—the purpose, that is 
to say, of ornamenting some given space or 
thing. 

It may be quite true that ornament which 
does no more than this deserves no very 
high place in our esteem. The artist very 
naturally magnifies art; and to the crafts- 
man craftsmanship is of the first impor- 
tance; but to him only. No mankind @ma 
general it is the man behind the art that 
is interesting ; and the Philistine is not such 
a fool, after all, in asking of the artist who 
claims his attention that he shall have some- 
thing to say for himself. When the everlast- 
ing burden of his song is only, “See what an 
artist am I!” we soon weary of that mono- 
tonous brag, even though it be warranted ne 
some degree of achievement. 

The craftsman very rightly insists upon 





amea Akerman. london WC 





“Puoto-Tint, by 


Indian Naga, Stone carving. 


































l 


i 
IN SS 


, IXYSS 
TOWNS 


\ 
DA i ict 









180. Egyptian sacred beetle. 


adequate craftsmanship. The rest of the 
world finds craftsmanship inadequate, and 
asks for something more. 

We find accordingly that in ancient and 
medizeval ornament there is usually an under- 
current of symbolism. Indeed, one might 
safely say it is always there, and that when we 
do not see it, it is only the distance that dims its 
meaning to us. There is probably no single 
detail of ancient ornament to which a sym- 
bolic origin could not plausibly be assigned 
by those who give themselves up to the inter- 
pretation of such mysteries. 

Eastern ornament, in particular, is apt to em- 
body some sentiment or meaning. Egyptian 
art was, practically speaking, hieroglyphic 
picture-writing (Plate 79) of the same kind 
(only much more nobly developed) as the 
totems of the North American Indians. 

Persian ornament, again, is always inspired 
by some poetic notion—it is, in fact, a sort of 


238 Nature in Ornament. 


language of flowers. The 
ornamentist has in his mind 
a bed of roses and tulips 
(Plate 65), a garden, and 
so on, and combines his 
flowers, we may reasonably 
suppose, so as to convey 
to Persian eyes a distinct 
sentiment. 

In the ornament of other 
Eastern countries there is a 
kindred spirit of sugges- 
tion. Phe, Imdian” latitee 
of which part is given on 
Plate 77, is plainly intended 
to convey the notion of a § S28 
fore oloudes and sacred 

In a very differents way? “(ose 
of his own the Japanese, again, loves to put 
some meaning into his pattern (Plate 109), 
and in a mere diaper (as above) will manage 
to convey the suggestion ==: 
of fire, air, and water. = 2F a 

Everywhere,  more- J . 
over, the symbols of ri === 
ligion have been turned , SS 
to account, from the naja 
or many-headed serpent 
of Buddhistic worship _ 18. Cro-s of fleurs-de-lis. 





Mu 


dl 





hs 
Hew" 


| 


i 


i 


wl 


\ 
" 
| 


en 


=n 


a 











[rer Srcevlare x other Silks 


“of Be 127 os 74% cenleries 





C#-¥el PhoteLitho,SFumnivral X. How «Ec 


Conventional Trees. 





Bes 


pee 
































ere Ornament. 239 


Ty ee alll 


(Plate 119) to the 


< eve BD. cross’ of ‘Christi- 
aa 4 Zee anity and the cres- 


ul lat cent of Islam. (The 

ie TT cross is combined 
an with the fleur-de-lis 
om p. 236.) The 
tree and _ serpent, 
and the tree alone (Plate 120) remain indeed 
into medizval times characteristic ornamental 
features, very common indeed in Byzantine 
and Romanesque ornament (p. 143); 
symbol lingers in Sicilian silks down to the 
fourteenth century. 

In the earlier rendering of the tree of 
life, which we see in Assyrian sculpture 
more or less in the 
form of palm fronds, 
we have the  pre- 
cursor, if not the 
parent, of the Greek 
anthemion (see p. 
158); and in the 
winged bulls which 
sometimes kneel in 
adoration on each 
side of it, the proto- 
types of the Greek 
184. Assyrian sacred tree. gryphons, 


























183. Assyrian sacred tree. 





240 Nature in Ornament. 





185. Iris or fleur-de-lis ?— 
17th century Venetian. 


The winged globes, 
the sphinxes, the sacred 
beetles) andy tice allie 
(p. 237) *togetherawach 
the Nile plants, deter- 
mine the very character 
of Egyptian design. 

Emblems of  sove- 
reignty again, and he- 
raldic badges of all kinds 
—the rose, the lily, and 
the fleur-de-lis, for ex: 
ample (Plates 42, 43, 63, 
64, 121, &c.)—have been 
the“ motifs” of ornament 
down to quite recent 
times, when symbolism 


has given way toa realism altogether inade- 
quate to supply its place in ornament. 
A symbol must be removed from nature, or 


it suggests not 
the idea sym- 
bolised but the 
thing used as 
symbol. A re- 
alistic Agnus 
Dei, let us say, 
suggesting the 
sheep-pen, is 





186. Egyptian symbols, 


‘Plate lal. 





don ,W.C. 


Lon 


Puoro-Tint, by James Akerman 


« 


Late Gothic Fleur de-lis-Iracery. 


Yh eel 


Te Sh 





Syubolic Ornament. 241 


an absolutely irre- 
verent rendering of 
the emblem. So, 
again, the upper- 
most of the embroi- 
dered flowers on 
p. 240 is clearly not so much a 
fleur-de-lis as an iris. Compare 
it with the one below it, with 
Plates 44 and 121, and with the 
flowers on p. 45, and you will 
see that very plainly. There 
are further examples of Gothic 
fleurs-de-lis on this page. 

Of the usefulness of heraldry 
in ornament there is no possible 
doubt, not even in the minds 
of those who least respect the 
blazon of the herald as a title 
to distinction. The very need 
of introducing helmet, shield, 
badge, motto, or what not, has 
led to fresh forms of decorative 
design, admirable in themselves, 
apart from any interest there 
may be in tracing out their mean- 
ing. But concerning heraldry, I 





: : 87. Gothic 
have already said what I had _fteurs-de-lis. 


to say elsewhere.* 


* ‘Some Principles of Every-day Art,’ p. 63. 
R 


242 Nature in Ornament. 


The mere repeti- 
tion of symbols, 
even when conven- 
tionally rendered (as 
in the Greek border 
of eyes, p. 243), is 
not a happy form of 
ornament, if indeed 
it can be called or- 
nament at all. But 
the additional in- 
terest imparted to 
mere foliage by the 
introduction of oc- 
casional badges and 
the like (opposite), 
needs no pointing» 
out. 

The quarrel we 
have with the mod- 
ern Philistine is not 
that he wants some- 
thing more than 
technique, not that 
hey sicee too excere 
ine, but that she 
exacts mainly the 


common-place. - : 
Whether he ask oS ee ee 


Mantua. 








Puoto-Tint, by James Akerman London .W.C 


Marguerite Panels, Wood Carving. 





Symbolic Ornament, 243 


for poetry or for prose, it is some- 
thing very odvious that he de- 
mands. And it must be owned 
that we are only too ready to 

supply what he wants; from Je 
which readiness may be inferred  *8?"*™ 
that, if there is no great demand for subtle 
thought or graceful fancy in design, neither 
are thought and fancy precisely abundant in 
the market. 

Far be it from me to urge the prosaic 
to try and pump up poetry. Poets will try 
for it, poorly as it may pay—that is in pounds, 
shillings, and pence. For the rest, we live in 
a world of prosaic people who will miss 
nothing in our work, be it never so uninspired. 

Whatever an artist has to say he will say 
in his art. A thoughtful man is never content 
without putting meaning into his work, not 
that it has any commercial value, but for his 
own satisfaction: to him it would not be 
complete without it. If he make use of 
scrolls, flowers, garlands, 
animals, amorini, and so on, 
it is not as the stale “pro- 
perties * of Classic or Re= 
™ maissance tradition, but with 
190. Segment of Greek significance always—a sig-. 

border of eyes— 
from a painted dish. nificance which would by 

Ko 2 








244 Nature in Ornament. 


no means justify poor design, but which 
undoubtedly enhances the pleasure we derive 
from good pattern. 

Neither have they (if there be such) who 
care solely for grace and beauty of design, any 
just cause of complaint if the artist, over and 
above the full weight of decorative design, 
throw in, to my delight or yours, what may 
be to them a superfluous wealth of meaning 
—so long as it in no way interfere with the 
essentially ornamental character of the design. 

That is the condition of conditions: Sym- 
bolism must not interfere with art. It will 
not supply its place. Yet in the hands of an 
artist it may be made to minister to the main 
purpose, and at the same time to raise design 
to a point of interest which pattern in itself 
always fails (and, as an ornamentist, I may be 
allowed to say very naturally fails) to awaken 
in the general mind. 

On page 245 is a reduction from one of a 
series of borders framing a selection of texts 
“Touching the Resurrection,” in) whieh eine 
ornament was based mainly on the idea of 
seed-vessels. In treating the maple seeds 
the intention was not only to remove them 
from nature but to emphasise the fact that 


they were “winged” seeds, and so add to their 
significance. 


Mee =) 
PNG % Z Sues 
ete eaes 


ARS 





Symbolic Ornament, book cover. 





Symbolic Ornament, 245 


> 


CZ, ing 
SO FA ah OE < 

> Vy (Pp, 
We EZ VEZ 


VIE ; an 


191. Symbolic border or 
seed-vessels. 





With regard further to the rendering of 
symbolic forms, one is justified in approaching 
fairly near to the natural type, so long as 
one does not approach so near as to substitute 
the thing for the symbol. The lily on Plate 
75 is rather too suggestive of the garden 
in July to do duty for the symbol of the 
Virgin. A severer Gothic rendering, or at all 
events a more abstract representation, would 
more immediately call up the idea of the 
Annunciation. 

But, however remote the emblem from actu- 
ality, there should never be any mistake about 
‘its identity. On Plate 122 are shown three 
very characteristic renderingsof the marguerite. 
In the one case the growth is fairly natural, in 
the others the lines are much more arbitrarily 
disposed, but there is no mistaking the flower. 


246 Nature in Ornament. 


In the rendering of the marguerite on 
Plate 123, the idea was that the meaning 
should be there (just as there is a meaning 





igz. Heraldic oak —Italian Renaissance. 


in the arrangement of the flowers) for the 
satisfaction of a.personal sentiment, but that 
it should not be too obvious. For one’s own 
sake and for those whom it may concern, 


Sy nbolic Ornament. 247 


one may sometimes hint in ornament what 
one does not care to say quite plainly. 

Yet, though it be essential to general in- 
terest that ornament should mean something, 
it may fulfil its purpose perfectly without 
meaning more than beauty ; and, in fact, its 
true artistic interest is apart altogether from 
any thought of symbolism. 

The artist, for all that, who has anything to 
say for himself, says it, and will say it ; and his 
art is by so much, not the more ornamental, 
but the better worth having. For which 
reason, as well as on account of the influence 
symbolism has had, and must always have, 
upon art—since men are something more 
than artists—it has seemed necessary to 
touch upon the inner meaning of ornament. 
But, once more, the art is in the saying, not 
in the thing said. 





fon X TO ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Abstract 
TMALE. 2.06 os 525202 Ps 109 
ornament ...pp. 49, 152 
Meanthus ......... PP- 34, 35 


WANE-INKE 225 06 0s sci De 
Agorn patterns .........p. 53 
Albertolli......... pp. 95, 170 
Bidegrever ............p. 124 
POTIAAIS foc eccncceencss seb le O4 
Anthemion ............ p. 158 


ONE ens ice. -o0< cee De LOZ 
Renaissance, pp. 20, 164 
PI oo eaten Haan Pl. 8, 82 
and vine, frieze ...P1. 52 
PEPE IIE ocd: oiscee-s Pl. 54 
Arabesque 
German ...p. 47, Pl. 20 
Tialian — ..;::. Pl, 17,15, 
96, 100 
Archaic Greek, p. 65, Pl. 41 
Artichoke............... Pl. 38 
Artificial 
GRACE osc sins PP- 90, 97 


rendering...p. 76, Pl. 32 
rendering of rose, Pl. 62 
Asparagus et ee 


Assyrian 
PEISCELC. 6 aec.ceeraenene p- 155 
symbolic ornament, 
p- 151 
FECES scccas pp. 142, 239 
WAIN Sf scc den es aeen p. 106 
5 p. 50 
PICU: © cannedissnectecct Pl. 5 
B. 
Bat 
diaper .c22:: pp. 184, 191 
embroidered ...... p- 194 
ANT on case tee p. 216 
Bae pasate cteeen PL §,.81 
BAGBY Zo coats 3c kx tne PL 3.5 
Beetle, Egyptian ......p. 237 
OV BCTlIS i... 6i.u.. bse Ps 
BSGPPIOS 501th. teense Pl. 37 
from nature......... ies 
DO erate n ss cnn ceeeene P- 57 
BURGER ihe pnainca eee dates ani PL3 
Bird 
BECSE doses inese=es p. 181 
& flower crest...... p. 181 
Glaser tock. uke: p. 185 
Birds =p. 230, Fl. o4 
in flight saneen oomed p. 181 


Blossoms, Japanese},p. 213 
Book-cover ...... Pl).22, 123 


250 
Boragewort ............ Pl. 6 
Bouquet......... p. 48, Pl. 21 
Boule oer nscosssetosieece: p. 41 
IayBUCIORY Gagonnoanbue paises 
Brocatelle 7.3 5..-.2" p. 140 
IBYONZE..8. ich ek tos se cael p. 109 
Pl. 41, 63, 71 
IBV OOM oie: orcs Pie, 
Brunelleschi ......... Pl. 46 
Brush-work............Pl. 13 
Pp. 34, 66, 152 
Buckwheat ............ Pl. 10 
Buddhist sculpture...p. 134 
Pl, 67, 119 
Budding branches, from 
MALT! 25..ans oeoteceee eles 
Bud-like forms.........p. 63 
Buds 
from) Mature! sees. Pl, 8 
On cuits] seer eee S 
or seed-vessels ? ...p. 57 
IBuUneeS, Wn eaconso p- 185 
Butterflies ............ FL 97 


Byzantine carving ...p. 115 


C. 


Candelabrum .........p. 19 
Caney oso soccocce sees Pl. 4 


Carrot saneaiiewdaeseanee Pl. 10 
Carved door............ Pl. 28 
Carving 
Gothic) =p lose 29 
WINGS! 2 0he. .cemere Pl. 108 
Celandine ...p.170, Pl. 33 
Chinese 
buttenrtites tes--eree Pl. 97 
embroidery ...Pl. 76, 97 


pp. 29, 171, 194 


I[nudex to Illustrations. 


Chinese 
flower forms, pp. 50,157 
TOliager eee pp. 48, 51 
** kiss-me-quick,” p.171 
Lotus Ack eee Pl. 88 
orchides sass Pl, 76 
pomegranates Pl 73 
Wiistaniae 2.0.0.3. ssPaeo 
Chrysanthemum ...p. 182 
DAtterMeu ee eeceen. Pl. 40 
Classic 
leafage, modification 
OP Beraneccce eres p- 39 
WITT sess eecereeee Pl. 53 
Cloisonné enamel ...p. 189 
Cloud: pattern’... p. 216 
Clouds: av.cschs sess p- 238 
Cobcea scandens ......p.14 
Pl. 89 
Cock...isaciciaie emer Pl. 94 
Colour printing ...... P73 
Columbine tee Pl. 83 


Confusion of effect...p. 101 
Coptic 


embroidery ...... Pl. 25, 

49, 57 

feather border ...p. 227 
feather diaper ...p. 227 
Corn sce pp. 89, 90 
Cranes, Japanese...... Pl. 92 
C@resswonl \ escheat Pl. 6 
Cretonne ...P1. 48, 61, 106 
Crocketi. 35... Pl. 29 
hawthorntes decease p- 59 
UTS mpastianosddabes do Pp. 59 


Crocket-like foliage ...p. 38 
Cross of fleurs-de-lis, p. 238 
Crown, imperial....... P1.31 


Index to Illustrations. 


D. 
Damascening ......... PI..30 
Dandelion ...........- Pl. 90 
Day, Lewis F. :— 

Book-cover ...... Pl. 123 


Chrysanthemum Pl. 40 
Cobcea scandens, Pl. 89 


Cretonne ...Pl. 61, 106 
Dandelion ......... Pl. 90 
mci ssc os..20 oa yee fe EPS 


Frieze ...Pl. 14, 52, 85 
Grotesque scroll, Pl. 106 
Heraldic mantling, 


p. 223 
BAY iia. csctenwk Le FE 
BMicrocsse.. oes PL, 305° 75 


Linen damask ...P1. 89, 
FIEy 1325533 


PPM on tcc PI, 102 
PVAPCISSUS -23... 025. Pp: 93 
RTS thos ookeh et wet Pea 
Poppy <.2p. 172, Pi. 72 
ERM 23S <nonke Pl. 48 


Seaweed ...Pl. 111, 112 
Seed-vessels ......p. 245 
Stained glass ...... Pl. 59 


WLeS) e oeckes As Pls9,-39 
go 6 eos PISS5 
WMO secxsstons PI,59;.61 


Wall-paper ... Pl. 37, 38 
-Denaturalised floral 


details ... «Ps O68 
Diaper 

Of bats*.:..,;. pp. 184, 191 

Of birds): 0227.24. pe 185 

of dragon-flies ...p. 183 

of Manies:...3..e.06- Dp; 215 

OEIC) Peo cesaceens p. 162 


Diaper 
Japanese ....5:5.. Pl. 109 
pp. 78, 159, 182, 238 
peacock-feather, Pl. 114 
of spiders’ webs, p. 214 
Diletra-spectabilis...p. 171 
Delphine 3. 04.2..2.5:: p. 180 
Dragon, Japanese ...p. 210 
Dragon-fly diaper ...p. 183 
Drusse, Nicolaus ...Pl. 117 
TUG 2.545 ocd esau Pl. 129 


Diirer, Albrecht ...... Pl. 60 
Dutch conventions ...Pl. 47 
E. 

Earthenware, Assyrian, 
p. 151 
Egyptian 
beetle coca Pp. 237 
enantel” 22 2.:22i0 50! p- 189 
GVCSt pacanavetacmac oat Pp. 243 
FOCUS +2228, p- 240, Pl. 79 
papyrus ...p. 150, Pl. 79 
Sculpture i necks Pl. 79 
WUTERTES (boas nates p. 188 


Bighteenth-century silk, 


p.76, P1.32, 33, 44, 62, 70 
Elaborated flower, 


pp. 79, 80 


Embroidery ...... Pl. 69, 73 


PGC. was esata p. 211 
butterflies ......... Pl,07 
Chinese ...... PE, 96, 97 


pp. 29, 171, 194 
Coptic ...Pl. 25, 49, 57 


252 

Embroidery 
German ...... PP. 77, 80 
Gothic =7accns ee 
Indian: (ee cencce se: p. 187 
tala a Aiea p- 135 
JJapaneseier.-cecec: p. 66 


Oriental, p. 131, Pl. 114 

Turkishy ye so2-a22- RIStrs 
Enamel, Egyptian ...p. 189 
English 

Gothic Pl. 29, 58 

silk 
Etruscan detail ......p. 158 


Byes, border of ......p. 243 
F, 

Faience 
itallianieeeereey acer Pl. 114 
lustredieeeeeese PlE1d 
Persia aes p. 46 
INO dianeneeeeseeeee p. 132 
RNOMEN oan epee Pp: 47 
border taisssocr Ds 227) 
diaper) jae eee 105 227 

Fifteenth-century detail, 

p- 157 

PAG ck Sense seceeee eee LS 

Figure 
INENOIN®  cooooagoe Pl. 99 
IE oy tials eee E79 
Gothic yeas Pl. 101 
PATOUESCUS ooo ocouce Pl. 105 
Elolbeme yey ee PSO 
Italian eee. eee Pl, 100 
Japanese essa Pl. 109 
patterne eres eee p. 186 
Remluvianeeeae. eee Pl. 94 


Index to Illustrations. 


Fir 
CONE hic: p. 157, El 79 
Japaneseleereere Pl. 109 
LLCE: enews Pl, 80 
Fish 
ASSynlamly sees eeee Pl. 80 
Japanese essere Pl. 109 
husStney se. eaereee Fl. 102 
IAM Sees ce naa ene p- 215 
Fleur-de-lis 
CEOSS » 2.06. ues nese BO 
Gothic...... pp. 160, 241 
Pl. 121 
healianyeee. eee p. 240 
Romanesque ...... p. 160 
trac enyee. oer Pl. 121 
leur de lucerne Pl. 
Floetner, Peter ......... Pp. 47 
Floral forms within floral, 
P- 73 
Footprints, Japanese, Pl.109 
I Hop: (CSCIGHS aoaosccoosss p. 180 


French Gothic, 
pp. 63, 116, 156 


VICZO | we. dees p. 180, Pl. 14 
Brbillaryy ence eee PlS31 
PEG patternere eee Pl. 87 
MYUItS ossics.aeeeieeeo sone p. 53 
BUN EUS sayen akeeer PI. 76 
G. 
Grallgno iu cosa cuteaen Gane eG 
GOS) cokes cceseceeree PIE79 
German 
arabesque, p. 47, Pl. 20 
conventions ...... Pay, 


embroidery ...pp. 77, 80 
foliage ...p.124, F1. 83 


Index to Illustrations. 


German 
Gothic ......p. St; Pl. ot 
hammered work, PI. 36 
IROMWORE ....6:.-- p. 204 
MAMTA 5.5... p. 224 
MOS CULC sea c.ctee Scie a1 <.cie's p- 55 
eM sven snc Pi.“16,,.16 
PPRPMOTU, - coi ecs ccc. nines Pl 7s 
Giulio Romano ...... Plea 
Glass painting ......... p. 126 


Goldsmiths’ work ...p.98 

PL.2t, 53) 147 

Gooseberry ............ Pl. 98 
Gothic ! 

anthemion shape, p.162 

carving ...p. 119, Pl. 29 


BEE coe foi cvosncas p. 162 
embroidery ......... p- 79 
Haelish.......:. Pl. 29, 58 
fleur-de-lis, pp. 160, 241 

Pl. 12% 


French, pp. 63, 116, 156 


German ,..p. St, Pl.-91 
BRN cist fs PP- 43, 126 
OI es onc race cok Pl42 
IGRWOPK. ©. 2.0.05. Pl. 36 
Italian ...p. 120, Pl. 51 
RUMEN 5. 55...0 00 es p- 139 
GAM esa. coke teas PI, 20,74 
OM ys oo cae Pl. 84 
BCraIl G42. .2: PI, 19, 101 
SESE yo aSasecnenreee: p. 60 | 
stone-carviny, pp.63, 116 
EES tis setchten oer p. 62 
FRAUEN amas. hcsbces Pl. 123 


wood-carving, 
Ply sS.01, E21, 
PP: 55, 63, 65, 81,111, 
Fiz, 118, 224 





253 
| Greek 

anthemion ......... p. 158 
BPGMAE. 4 wicmcans ee Pl. 41 
ORO ei access sete p. 61 
detail! S52 cticccee2 p. 160 
CEPOL oc. ke acces Pl. 110 
DP oss « p. 575) bs: 24, 38 
SGnOUe ort eecsstce ls ae 
that might be Gothic, 

p- 65 
WAGE Je) fos a0 Pi. 24, Si 


pp. 108, 152, 153, 243 
Gribelin, S. ...p.98, Pl. 99 


Grotesque ............p. 202, 
Pl. 94, 96, 102, 104 
ECU 3 Ss sect ne ps 2EL 
Pere. “1.2.20 Pl. 103, 105 
German .... ......p. 204 
serail: Zcjscshew Pl. 106 

Growth 
conventional ...... P1.37 
MACUFAL Sav sean ns Pl. Io 

EH 

Hammered iron ...... Pl. 36 
Hawthorn ...p, 59, Pl. 3, 29 
Heartsease ............ Pl. 35 
Heston, ©. 22. .cicsnssnt p. 89 
Hemlock: |... --s 225-5022 Pl. 4 
Heraldry ...... pp. 223, 224, 
242, 247 
|, BROMGSI ices c ce eee Pl. 103 
Honeysuckle ......... Pl. 44 
ico! ge eee ney pp. 81, 110 
igrter eo) g ch ca ees Pl. 16 
Hornbeai:......2.25-+s.- P1.8 
Horse-chestnut ......... Pig 


| Hyacinth...... p. ror, Pi. 32 


254 


1 
Incising 42.2. Deeli5 Oem lea 
Inconsistency ......... p- 96 
Indian 
CORNY can ee eee p. 88 
damascening ...... E20 
embroidery p- 187 
WU AGy EL ote ecoame env re Pl. 66 
URIS Faye Sate akteeer Pl. 30 
lotus...p. 134, Pl. 67, 68 
HAA essere ene PKS 
DPOPPYaue ce cee p. 61 
ECE Eee ces Be 
WEAVING yiaen eearcie lee26) 
wood-carving ...... p. 65 
Tl aye ponies os ee D SOS yale nom 
Boule wee pel 
Livdian serene: PIeGos 


Italian, p. 57, Pl. 43, 69 
modern ...p. 226, Pl. 42 


Rersiany 2:4 fone p- 169 
Interlacing, Keltic...Pl. 107 
TVS os aaenerac eee p. IOI 

emlbrorderye ee p- 135 

Indian: eee: Eizo 

Instore eee Pl. 44 

japanese aase-a.ecee p- 66 

VielViciie. saa nee p. 240 

Walter Craneeeee. TRL 
Iris-like ornament......p. 45 
iron emillers cca re DP aZOn 
Italian 

Arabesque ...P1. 17, 18, 

96, 100 

emlbroidenysaeeeee: p- 135 

faience see eae Pl. 114 

Gothic sae p- 120 


inlay ...p. 57, Pl. 48, 69 











Index to Illustrations. 


Italian 
ScHolles nacuceeccre p- 123 
Silly eaten: p. 68, Pl. 34 
stone-carving ...... Pl. 51 
PP- 90, 247 
VelVel™ ocho eee p- 75 
wing-forms ...... Pl. 108 


wood-carying ...Pl. 96 
pp. 88, 110, 163, 209 
Italo-Persian textile ...p. 73 
PI.-65 

Ivy 
Classic. “espa Pl. 53 
Greek, p: 57, Pls2arcon 


ie 
Japanese 

borders O23. pe eG 
IWNACOINES sossoo cee POF 
CLAMeS aecccet ee Pl. 92 
dragon [22 ..c-pa2e 
diaper, pp.159, 191, 215 

Pl. 109 
diapering tara seeet p. 78 
embroidery .........p. 66 
ROW eee Pl. 10 
leaf=sheathss-seese Pl. 4 
leather ..............,p.96 


ornament, pp. 219, 222 
pattern ...pp. 186, 213, 

214, 216-220 
peacock-feather pattern, 


Pipa 

FOSES 0 tok en eee 2 
seed-vessels ......... Pl. 6 
WONWOISES oe cocdsoa5s Pives 
WEMVOngaescb ye pp. 219-221 
Jones; ) Owelwge-e Pi22 


Index to Iltustrations. 


K. 


Keltic interlacing ...Pl. 107 
Kiss-me-quick, p.171,Pl. 44 


i 
Lace, ivory point ...... Pl. 35 
EEE sds je cawee's p. 219 
PIBIR cet pn cuca see aun PLS 
Leaf sheaths ............ Pl. 4 
EMME, oo oc nce tunns ose Pl. 87 
BG WY 2.02. cee scenes Pl. 31 
Lily 
BOMTNIAE aT tsa lta 7s 2 p- 133 
BGS elves sctae oes p. 61 
ne) Pl.42;,43; 66 
Malian) ...:.. pp- 91, 92 
oS eee PL.35 
naturalistic, p.gI, Pl. 75 
eae Pi, 30 


Lily-like details ...... p- 160 
Lime 
Linen damask, pp. 121, 174 


Pi; 39, DI1 
Lotus 
PSSVTIAM. © os synane p-155 
SOMINESS -ciceicie: Pl. 88 
Egyptian, p. 240, Pl. 79 
BRON in oreo sine Pl. 110 
Indian, p. 134, P].67,68 
Love-in-a-mist......... Pl. 44 
BMPS os cuaet paths PL 102 
EIA aso kaease Pl. 18 
M. 
Majolica. See Faience. 


Maple: :.--+...3 p. 245, Pl. 29 


255 


Marble inlay ......... Pl, 66 
Marco Dente da Ravenna, 

Pl. 105 
Marguerite ........... Ph ¥22 


Mino da Fiesole ...... Dp: 
Modern 


CLASSIC. Pe ccdigeoncs coe p- 39 
GOPMIAI ait occ d vc o8: Pl. 98 
Moorish 
oak treatment ...p. 141 
vine treatment, pp. 113, 
114 
Morris, Wii. ..226.00 Pl. 87 
Mosaic 
Pompeiani. cacise 25 Pi,27 
Roman, pp. 36,59, Pl.15 
Muckley, W. J. ...... Pl. 86 
N. 
PIATCISOUS 6 6505s eh uust os p- 93 
Natural 
ECRIES Mihsxdasseere es PLS 
BEANO RES eS Phos 3. Pl.3 
HES pce cx, Pl. 8 
FOLIAGE, sseuinseensens p- 63 
BLOW Ese va lend es PY, 19 
leaf-sheaths ......... Pl. 4 
POMS santas ements Ek 
seed-vessels ......... p- 56 
Naturalism ............ Pl. 83 
Naturalistic 
BEES orcas vse mee Pl, 100 
MALY oasis n( Pp. Gt, P1395 
GAR Sie iee atric s nce p.22 
PEORY <a. .s<oscsts Pl. 86 
POOOY. csc cex hake p.172 
SUPA 2 siesta Pi.9 
Needlework..... ...... p. 136 


256 
Niello ............ p.61, Pl. 20 
Nightshade ............ RlS3 
Ninevite sculpture ...Pl. 80 
TN elds epsacecaneae sas Pl. 29, 45 
O. 
Oak 
Albertolli...........- p-95 
BEIVIS soocopeecosaesnne Pl.9 
Gothic. Pl. 29, 74 
eral dican.-s.cesecs p- 247 
Moorish ..........-. p- 141 
Matuallieeeme- sees: pa22 
P. Quentel......... Pl. 83 
Roman ...........++++ p-94 
Sicilians reece p- 142 
Oak-like leafage ......p. 37 
Olive 
Classicueners eee acre Pl. 50 
Greekicncso ease Pl. 81 
Olive-like leafage ...... DSi 
Onion) se eee BINS 
OYANge .-....+.2seee= Pl. 87 
Orchidvaea p- 96, Pl. 76 
BP: 
Painted wall-panel ...Pl. 17 
Painting 
Indian sale BO 
Pompeian ... Pl. 27, 118 
Palm trees ee ee ese, 
Papyrus ......p. 150, Pl. 79 
Passarini, Philippo, Pl. 116 
Passion-flower ........- p- 14 
PEO, ses seccee ee Pl. 10, 83 
Pea-pod ornament ...p. 20 
Pl. 46 





Tndex to Illustrations. 


Peacock embroidery, p. 187 
Peacock-feather 


Gia PeTSiemeerre eer Pl. 114 
inlay) Geass. p. 226 
pattern ...... Pl. 113, 115 
tiles: 4.2.60... --Paeze 
Peony 
OISAD" see ugoodeboo coc Pl. 86 
stencil ...........+++ p. 64 
Persian 
detail ...... pp- 45, 46, 66 
fOWAG er esas seaseceer Pl. 78 
TMIENZ seonesnceacr s00 p. 169 
porcelain, pp. 44; 45, 48 
Scroll Woneceses- cease p- 44 
sill ese De 4 lens 
tiles eeaeset pp. 101, 228 
Peruvian stuffs ...... Pl. 94 
Pheenician wreath ...p. 231 
Pierced stone ........- Plg7. 
“ Pine ” ornaments... Pl. 34 
Pink 
Eo aBRe doosacosecde: PL. 35 
needlework ...... p- 136 
textiles. ace- pp- 73, 149 
Pl. 7o 
tile-painting ......p. IO 
WNOKOWS) coocdoonocos Pl. 69 
PUA ee se eee ee eee Pie 
IPOS eccrine Pl. 45 
frome matube: ceeesere leer 
Pomegranate ...... Pl. 723 ou 
embroidery .....-.-- pant 
modern ......-.---: p- 139 
stencil ..........6-+++P- 60 
textile ...pp. 74-76, 140 
Pompeian 
bronze .......----- p- 109 
candelabrum ...... p- 19 


Index to Lllustrations. 


Pompeian 
eM ei... oies Pisoy 
painting ...... Pi.27,. 418 
1 Pl. 3 
Poppy 
PGITS cs ascceccewec kde FE 
TP a osc 5e ood Secivce Pl. 66 
Mataralistic® ......p. 172 
MNOS MS. Ga dca p. 61 
wall-paper ......... P72 


Porcelain ...pp. 44, 45, 48, 
66, 218, Pl. 88 
PM ob. ifcais ve decias ts’ Pl. 5 


yer AoW. ...::.0. Pl. 74 
©. 
Quattro-cento ...pp. 92, 123 
Quentel, Peter ......... Pl. 83 
R, 

BEAPID vos on 550 oak. c080. Pl, 109 

Renaissance 
anthemion ......... p. 164 
mrabesque :..<.5: Pl. 20 
eGR: oe 6e-s< 0s. p. 124 
Italian ...p. 163, Pl. 104 
needlework ...... p. 136 
pea-pods ©..3.5.2-4.5:p. 20 
get vat eas p- 149 
stone-carving, Pl. 45, 46 
RRGE chive ss sais sctien sa P- 247 
trophies .;..,.....:.p>. 229 
wing-forms ...... Pl. 108 

Rhodian faience ...... p.1%32 

Rococo scroll.... Pl. 116 


Roman 
candelabrum ......p. 133 


257 


Roman 
mosaic... .....PP+ 36; 59 
Pi. 15 
naturalism, p. 94, Pi. 82 
serail 3... p. 36, Pl. 12 


Romanesque 
detaal sé. 2.522 Pp. 42, 160 
SECM sie ease nctinteass p. 18 
PERE a ceiccacatlewmueee p- 143 

Rose 
anbitieral: .tv 3.295 Pl. 62 
embroidery......... p. 131 
Guotbie: ° 3.) esse Pl. 29 
Italo-Persian ..... p 130 

Pl. 65 

Japanese: ii... Pl; 
Rhedian:.....5500<. p- 132 
Walbert ccs iccksee El 23 
EOE eA Pl. 63, 64 

Rosette 


ASSYUIAN Ss i0.002re Pe, ESS 
Gothie:......p. §§;- 28 29 
Rouen ware.........P.47 


S. 
Sammicheli ............p.91 
Sansovino: «....25..... Pl. 104 
Scratched earthenware, 

BD, 117 

Scroll 

SOUNC i.) cies's dees p. 41 
& foliagers, ..5.6i..Ph. 48 
Gothic’ ie.:: Pl..t9, 101 
Greeks se ceacedeides Pl. 11 
grotesque ......... Pl. 106 
RGGMORi ysis iad woe 
FOEDCO x5 ssscxces PL‘116 


Roman......p. 36, Pl, 12 
5 


258 
Scroll 
- seventeenth century, 
Pl. 99, 117 
transitional’ 2.7. Pl. 16 
Sculpture 
Assyrian...p. 106, Pl. 80 
Bex ptian sees eee Pl. 79 
NOM anes e Pl. 55, 82 
Seaweed......... pp. 162, 222 
Pl. 111, 112 
Seder, Anton ......... Pl. 98 


Seed-vessels ...... PP. 56, 57 


Pl. 6 
Symboli¢us.ss-eee e245 
Seventeenth-century 
IBowlle paar eos p. 41 
conventions ...... Pl. 47 
embroidery ...... Pp. 135 
goldsmiths’ work, p. 98 
een 
scroll oie Pl. 99, 117 
Silkemeicas ass p. 68, Pl. 32 
WEIVCE eee cne se p. 240 
Shell eso sere ae e2e 
Sicilian silk ...... pp. 58, 142 
Pl.95 
Signorelli, Luca ......p. 202 
Silk co. ate eee pee paOe 
DNAS, S55 960 Pl. 62, 70 


eighteenth-century, p.76 
Pl. 32, 33, 44, 62, 70 
Italian: : eects aa 
Italo-Persian ...... p- 149 
ISOS GoososiDn OW/y ell, Be 
Persian 2p: 745 278 
seventeenth-century, 
p. 68, Pl. 32 
Sicilian ...... pp. 58, 142 
Pl. 95 


Index to Illustrations. 


Silvers classicy seca lerse 

Simplified forms, pp. 54, 64 

Sixteenth-century 
Arabesque... Pl. 18, 100 
Arabesque German, 


P- 47 
badges sane p- 242 
naturalism ......... Pl. 83 
Silke Sa ne een Pl. 34 


wood-carving...... Pl. 96 


Skull ornament ...... p. 230 
Snail’ 22) aossesceeer ee Pl. 98 
Snowberry .............+. Pl. 5 
SOlaMUMI ta oe ee ees 
Spanish 

CALVING <.t.25- oP ee 

textilence a ace p. 140 
Spiders’ webs ......... p- 214 
Spindle-berry............ Pi.5 


Stained glass...p. 43, Pl. 59 


SteM 5.5 senccose oP enon 
Stencil 
Gothic... 3ps.0o 
PEORY: taeieneceere p. 64 
SEMA e ere eee Pl. 56 


Stone-carving 

archaic Greek ......p. 65 
Egyptian 
rane ois yee p. 38 
Gothic eee pp. 63, 116 
Indian pe l34 peel 
Indian Buddhist, 

Pl. 67, 68 
Italian ...p.123, Pl. 69 
Renaissance...Pl. 45, 46 


Stork sec cocee eae Da Oe 
Strawberry ............ p- 174 
Street, G. E. ...........p. 54 


Stucco, classic ......... Pl. 53 


Index to Illustrahons. 


Stuffs, Peruvian ...... Pl. 94 
Sumner, H. ...p.64, Pl. 56 
SWE? 0. 2......-0.-0s Fil 23 
Peo 325-5 -2-..0--2 Dx 233 
PEMEIONS 25)... sien FI, 3 

Symbolic 
border, Assyrian, p. 151 
BAGEL... 52... 15.--. Po 230 
PRS Sasso Scapa PAS 
AE te oie a Aa na Pit 
BAW van cen cnn nc oss Pw LOO 
IE cence Sais Pl. 119 
Groiament ...)... ~.. Pl. 123 
papyrus ...pp. 150, 240 
seed-vessels ......p.245 
REG eas Mn- sexe P20 
vulture p. 188 

q, 

Talbert, B.J., pp. 139, 226 
Fi23, 42 


Tapestry, Gothic...... PI 19 
PRM Sabon ksoacn sa E 
Tendrils...pp. 14, 15, Pl. 60 
Terra-cotta, Greek, 

Pi, 24, p. 243 
Thigile ......p. 54, Pl. 83, 91 


Thoroughwax ......... Fis 
SG esas <a PI. 9, p.62,. Pl. 39 
Assyrian: ".....:-.6-p. 151 
CE ge ic es eens p. 62 
Persian 3. ...p. 201, 228 
WOPrtOIses (24.5... ... +5222 Pl..93 


Tracery, Gothic...... Fl, ran 
Traditional, Indian... Pl. 26 


IN rt sis tdud «nice =p Pl, 120 
MEG EROS. oso cer tdena® Ee 24 
TROND i555 0.05% Le e5 Ph77 





259 

Tree 
af life i...43 pp. 142, 143 
TOMAR ee 5 onic ses p- 59 
SRCERU ogee sveissin ts p- 239 
SORCP MAM 20 35 vk ct caw nse p- 58 
PP ODIG aii. n5 tes csavsass Pe eee 
EOP ORE 5 oe kc xeon Pl. 4 
Eudor Tose... ........« P1..63, 64 
EME Dir sce, oe ves Pl. 65, 85 
PUI -GLOR* c 6 ses cs ane xe Pl. 8 

V 

Velyets....<... Pp. 73, 75, 130 
NIM Fas. ce cachet el AS 
PAM ee co eee Pl. 54 
Assyrian .....:. 3p. 106 
Byzantine: .. ..<./.p. BR5 
CALVING © ...-5. 0c GG 
ClaSSIG. Sites ashen. PlS.53 
Coptic’... .c-s Pl. 49, 57 
CEELONMES (heres deies Pl, 29 
Diner 4.2. ccveer Pl. 60 
Terns een. n cea PI §2 
Gothie- +f -..3.2050 Pl oe 


pp. 59, III, 112, 116, 
118, I19, 121, 126 
Greek ...p. 108; Pl-24 
inlaid in bronze...p. 109 


Italian...... pp. 110, 123 
Italian-Gothic ...p. 120, 

Pl. 51 
Moorish ...pp. 113, 114 
GMA: © ces ncs eet Pl. 50 
sgraffitto pa Tk] 
stained glass ...... Pl. 59 
Stencil :..so. 56 aku 9 
PEMOTUGS. i) 2 isivec: adie Be 


260 


Vine-like acanthus ...p. 38 


AALTNHUSRERY novdcocao ced sco105 HS 
W. 
Wall-painting 
taltanaeee ence ROO 
Romipelane ees Pl. 118 
Wall-paper, W. Burges, 
p. 185 


een Deer lalee sen oem 2 

Wm. Morris ...... Py, 

Ben leap ei teaeee lee 
Walnut 
Water, Japanese ......p.217 
Water-lilies, Japanese, 


paIZuy 

Wave 
diaper, Japanese, p. 238 
Japaneses seep 


& lotus diaper ... Pl. 110 
ornament, Japanese, 


p. 219 





Lnudex to Illustrations. 


Wave 
pattern, Japanese, 
pp. 216, 218-220 


Wheat-ears.......:....5.. p. 68 
Wing 
TORS. eee Pl. 108 


treatment, Egyptian, 
pp. 188, 189 


Italian 2)..4p2 20a 
Wistariay 2 else eee p. 29 
Wood-carving 

Cairenet... 22 ees eles 


French Renaissance, 
Pp. 230) elkar2z2 
Gothic ... Pl. 58, 91, 121 
PP- 55, 63, 65, 81, 111, 
112, 118, 224 


Indian yic2-c. Dao 
Ttaliang ees Pl. 96 

pp. 88, 110, 163, 209 
Tudor tcc ee ee leon! 
Wreath). 5.. 5.5.58. Daeon 





LONDON : PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, 
GREAT WINDMILL STREET, W., AND DUKE STREET, STAMFORD STv., S.E. 





i wn 


el 
if 
> 





2 ca Py of 


Las 





peat 
cena 
at he, 
ent 

oy 


ae es, 
Gi Eade 
frets aie ett 
and a oe ete 
AS 


Pe i ee aa 
Ge Spee Ana eh 
(Pe SS uy 3 


me) 


BENS af 


ip AG re 


nt 
ea 
f 


; 
i 


- 


2 
et 
sy 


5 
oy 
Te 


poe, | 
Tre 
Grit ee 


eee 
ot 
age 
ihe EE 
a 


y z end 
| te Pa 
eer ened 
eg 


s 
® 


- 


Pie 
HR 


vf 


of 


éi oe : : 
(ae | | 
ae Soa Pet 
fa kate S « 
ize Weare: <a 
Ber Bu a jaceee = 
a Bee be aoe: 
t a {faba a i ean 
Ne 7 a 
ae 7 Soh 


te, 
f 


INCRE a 
FOG Sy 


aoe 
fehl Evie 


——— 
LD: 
ALES 





i ' % | 
4 ips 


ly" “Ay 





iii